There are a number of ways to rig research so that the findings support your hypothesis.

Firstly only collect data which supports your hypothesis and ignore all other data. Like for example only collect data showing women are victims of domestic violence and not to collect data on men being victims.

Secondly, only research one aspect. For example the ABS womens safety survey did not ask women if they ever abused men. It only asked them if they had been abused.

Thirdly construct the research questions to support your hypothesis. "When did he last hit you?" or "When was the last time you hit her?"

Marie Claire magazine ran a promotion "Its time to talk!" but the magazine only wanted women to talk and for men to remain silent.

Fourthly, use a mismash of data and present it in varying ways, such as in some incidences percentages of percentages, 100% of 10% or to use raw figures. What ever looks the most impressive. Remember that scare about HRT causing an increase in heart attacks. It double a womans risk. In that it double the increased risk from 0.06% to 0.12% of women taking HRT.

There are many other methods used in manipulating data and research.

The point I was trying to make about the rest of thw world is that if you take a broader perspective, dv is a gendered issue. To quote from the article I linked to, "At all sites, from Bangkok to rural Peru, the presence of a controlling partner - a man who tried to restrict a woman's movements or was jealous of her outside contacts - was associated with a higher likelihood of abuse." To me, that suggests that it is an inequality in relationships that increases the likelihood of dv, and therefore if you have a society with a prevalence for having a male 'head' of the family that has control over everyone else in the family (including their partner), then you will have more female victims of dv. Thankfully in this country we promote the idea of equal relationships, which lessens the chance of abusive power relationships developing. So for me, a widespread prevalence of dv isn't about men being inherently violent and evil which is absurd, but about social structures of inequality.

James H, once again you accuse feminists of blaming men for everything and then turn around and blame women for everything in a startling display of hypocrisy. Do you not think your message is anti-female? (I certainly think being termed a 'family terrorist' is offensive). Do you not think you are playing the victim by depicting women as evil manipulative cows who want nothing more than to ruin men's lives?

BTW I posted before under fallen angel because I was having computer issues, sorry if this caused confusion.

Keep responses on topic.
Do not flame.
Do not "shout" (use capital letters excessively).
Do not post the same message across multiple threads.
Do not attempt to circumvent suspensions.
Observe copyright and defamation laws

The above are the rules which pertain to everyone who posts on OLO. Once again the same people who consistently show utter disregard for these rules have monopolized the thread. There is nothing new about the opinions they offer, there is nothing different about what they say – in scores of other threads they have used the same inflammatory language, provided the same evidence – usually from partisan sources or quoted out of context – and utilized their right to express themselves in order to publicise the fact that their own personal experiences have been unfortunate and they intend never to let go of them. They utilize these threads therapeutically, it seems, in order to vent anger through abuse under the cover of anonymity.

These posters are absent from discussion on articles other than those which can in any way be turned towards their own personal prejudices. Whenever new posters appear on “their” threads they combine to bully dissenters away and monopolise the thread to such an extent that it becomes a dialogue of smug “proof” that their views are the prevailing ones. I have protested before about this behaviour and so have other posters who look to OLO as a place for balanced discussion, adult behaviour, refreshing view points and perhaps an opportunity to increase our knowledge and understanding through other people.
This thread has become inane. Do you not have the wit to recognize that each post you submit serves as text-book proof of the validity of the article

Romany,

These are serious allegations regarding our conduct, and your arguments must be challenged.

Regarding the forum rules- Take a look over the history of this thread. Most time successive capital letters are used, it's for acronyms, like DV.

Copyright and defamation laws- If you are engaged in an argument, and you don't provide evidence, you get shot down for making unsubstantiated assertions. If you quote a source, and provide a link to that source, surely that is appropriate footnoting? And no-one has named their tormentor.

In the same vein, regarding the cover of anonymity, surely we are protecting the identities of our abusers as well. (This doesn't affect me, but perhaps some posters have children?)

Regarding monopolization of the thread/ bullying of dissenters: It is very difficult to bully in a debate over the internet. Firstly, one is, as you say, anonymous. Second, one has time to analyse an opponent's argument, draft and redraft a response if necessary, and provide sufficient evidence. (Ironically, I find this enormously refreshing, as regardless of whether my opponent is a bully, using 'verbal machine-gunning' techniques (see http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0407rolph.html, under the heading “The Victim’s Relationship to the Abuser), or merely engaged in friendly debate, I find it very difficult to respond systematically when confronted face to face. I find it much easier to respond to an argument in writing.) Providing a 700 word response to an issue about which one cares deeply is not bullying. When engaging people as skilled in forming an argument as can be found on this forum, anything less that a watertight argument receives a battering- (yes I know, I just couldn't resist the pun.)

Surely ‘prejudice’ is by definition uninformed.

This is only the second thread I have been involved with on OLO. In my first experience, (see “Kurd sellout- latest edition,”) I was shocked by the arrogance of my opponents, who among other things, appeared to find my username hilarious. However, I laboriously produced a number of rigorous replies, but was largely ignored. I hope my long responses didn’t hurt their feelings.

Having said this,

cont...

cont...

I appreciate la1985 and Romany (and Lev) for continuing to engage us.

The issue of physical assault in retaliation for verbal or emotional abuse has been misrepresented. As Hamlet states, there is no excuse for physical violence. But as Rob513264 has pointed out, this excuse is regularly used to defend women's violence against men. In extreme cases (battered wife syndrome) this is understandable, but regardless, one gets the perception from society that men who are victims of female physical violence are getting what they deserve. Simply put, there should not be a double standard. Violence is unacceptable, full-stop. We are also raising the point that verbal/emotional/psychological abuse is used by both men and women, but again, both the extent and effect of that committed by women appears to be either ignored or excused.

To la 1985,

You have made a good point regarding the rest of the world. (Regardless of the original focus on DV in Australia, which provoked our ire.) I agree with you, and studies show, that countries with better levels of male-female equality exhibit lower rates of male-initiated DV. However, I have taken issue with the fact that DV policy in this country focuses almost entirely on male-initiated DV, which is a reflection of flawed Feminist theory. The Feminist movement was right to point to the inequalities of the system, and to work to remedy them. However, much Feminist literature went further than challenging social structures of inequality, and argued that there is something inherently wrong with masculinity itself. This ideology can be seen across a broad range of issues, with a corresponding attempt to ‘feminise’ masculinity out of its bad habits. In relation to DV, this ideology prevents policy makers from taking a comprehensive approach in dealing with male and female violence. If applied in the rest of the world, it will have the same lopsided results.

Surely la1985 and Romany, this argument deserves to be engaged? If our sources are partisan or quoted out of context, or, indeed, wrong, give us specific examples. Or, in challenging the dominant narrative, am I merely being infantile?