Ah, Pericles, as always a sniper from self-constructed "cover". If only it were less flimsy...

Lexi:"inevitably, researchers,
like anyone else, (male or female)
will be guilty of some measure of bias"

Which is why the scientific method exists. It removes the potential for bias by imposing a higher standard of evidence, which includes the obligation to try to DISprove the proposition that has been put forward. Once that obligation to try to falsify the proposition has been removed, then the credibility of any conclusions relying on that proporsition is also suspect.

This is known as "begging the question" and is contra-scientific.

Feminism relies on begging the qusetion to exist.

Dear Antiseptic,

Thank You for supporting what I had stated earlier.
When research is published, other researchers can assess
the findings and attempt to verify them by repeating the
research to see if it yields the same results. This
procedure provides an extremely effective check against
bias and other distortions.

As for what "feminists" on any other group relies on.
I really wouldn't make sweeping statements
about any particular group. There are individual differences
even in groups. And, especially when you object
to that very premise being made about violence and men.
You're then doing the very thing that you're objecting
to.

Pericles <"You have made your view perfectly clear. However, it is not one I can remotely agree with, having seen the substantial physical damage a big man can cause to a small woman, and the trivial, temporary hurt a small woman can cause to a big man."

Exactly my point as well, but much better written.
When we start getting large numbers of men arriving at hospital emergency departments, having been severely hurt by women, and the women themselves aren't also admitted, half dead or in a morgue, then maybe I will believe we have the problem Antiseptic and Belly believe we have.

Antiseptic, we were discussing a physical altercation between a man and a woman on this thread, and not the obvious fact that anyone can goad anyone else into becoming violent though an argument. The fact remains that it is not the verbal 'initiator' of arguments who ends up in jail for physically hurting someone else.

The fact remains that most people have a free will and can decide for themselves whether they will initiate violence on the basis of an argument, or whether to be adult and intelligent about the matter, and walk away.

Robert, are you suggesting that all researchers of violence in our society are either female and/or feminist?
That's a bit of a stretch isn't it?

Lexi is correct in asserting that all researchers have a right to make what they will of their own research.
If there are any glaring problems or falsehoods in the statistics, then surely they could find some anti-feminist researchers to point out the truth, and prove it?

Just because someone goes to university does not make them a feminist, and even if they are, it does not mean they will give biased reporting on their research.

Suse, the point is simple: if a woman hits a man she is entirely dependent on his goodwill in not hitting back.

The fact that some men don't exercise that good will should be reason enough for women to exercise the restraint in the first place and not stike men.

Moreover, the fact that most men do exercise that good will and that our society expects it means that a woman who takes advantage of that is being at best cowardly. I used the analogy earlier of kicking a dog when it's been muzzled.

It's interesting that both you and Pericles advocate so strongly for the unchallenged right of women to strike men as and when they please.

On the subject of escalation, you seem to be suggesting that women are the principal initiators of arguments that may spin out of control into violence. You're probably right, which is why they should be concerned about the way such escalation occurs and thus take control of their own situation instead of leaving it entirely up to someone else to do so.

Lexi, I don't support what you said at all in the case of research informed by a feminist perspective. The whole point is that there is NO effort to falsify any hypotheses and much effort to cherrypick data and sample sets to confirm prejudices. Conflicting data is not examined and very often the whole point is to "prove" that some form of additional support for women is vitally needed.

Antiseptic <"It's interesting that both you and Pericles advocate so strongly for the unchallenged right of women to strike men as and when they please. "

Lol! Where on earth have either of us ever said such a stupid thing on this site Antiseptic? What a load of rubbish.
I have said many times that I abhor violence against and by ANYONE, and you know it.

You are trying to say that if women only just shut their mouths and not 'provoke' violence in men, then all would be ok?
Yeah right!
How many times are people hit or bashed for NO reason at all then?
Often some people are just in the wrong place and never provoked
anyone.
We have all met people who are violently angry for no real reason at all...

Should all men shut their provoking mouths also, in order not to be beaten up by other men then?
What utter piffle!

Dear Antiseptic,

In today's modern society there are many alternative
lifestyles and roles that are acceptable for both men
and women. Our society is individualistic and highly
open to change and experimentation, and in it men and
women can explore a wide variety or possible roles,
and choices. They are not as constrained as people
were of a generation ago. It's a society in which all possible
options should be open and equally acceptable for both sexes.

Today a person's individual human qualities rather
than their biological sex should be the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement.

See you on another thread. It's been interesting.