And while my isolated anecdotal incident surely doesn’t discredit the assertion, it does call into question something that’s often brought up in discussions regarding female abuse- reportage rates.

You have to wonder if reportage rates for female-on-male abuse are considerably lower than estimated, given the societal circumstances surrounding it. I understand that the response is simply, “Why look for a reportage rate error when there’s no evidence to support a discrepancy, unlike with rape?” but I still feel the need to bring up the point, since, you know, I’ve had the shit kicked out of me by two women and don’t think that’s just acceptable.

Yeah, it’s so funny, all those men making laws that deny women their rights! It’s all the feminists’ fault. That totally makes sense.

(Which is really a misleading statement. Because it doesn’t really matter who is in charge.)

Then fork over the government, fuckwit. Doesn’t matter? Hand over the goddamn keys now. Give it up. Let’s see what happens when we get women controlling things like abortion and BC and EC and shit like that. C’mon, babe, bring it on. Let’s prove it, right here and now.

(What matters is who is pulling their strings. And in terms of social issues regarding man/woman relations it’s been all feminists all the time.)

Hey, pal? I guarantee that if feminists were controlling things, that for starters no pharmacist anywhere in this country would so much as think of denying BC, abortions would be federally funded–and pretty damned rare, because we wouldn’t have this stupid abstinence only shit. Rapists would get arrested, and convicted—for a nice change of pace. Wife-beaters would get arrested long before they turned into wife-killers. Half the damned TV stations, half the radio stations, and half of everything would be liberal—-and real liberal, not just the kind that guys think will get them laid. If you opened a fucking newspaper, you’d see more than All White Guys, All The Frickin’ Time. Women wouldn’t have to starve themselves to be ‘attractive’ and men would have to appeal to women. Womens’ magazines would cover issues other than men. Women wouldn’t have to stay with men who abused them, and men who whine about on site job deaths would have to share those damned jobs—which are pretty damned high-paying—with women for a change. Half the House and Senate, needless to say, would be female. We’d have our first female President. Suddenly, a view of the world that wasn’t All White Guy, All The Time would prevail. In other words, women would actually have some say in what goes on, instead of having to pathetic trolls whine about conditions that prove them wrong. Oprah Winfrey? Oprah Winfrey? Hey, I know. How about I take that style of reasoning and point to OJ when it comes to summing up the condition and lives of men, okay?

Is that enough of a clue?

What I really want to know is if these fools actually believe this crap. I mean, come on—How could anybody with a brain stem believe this crap? I swear to God—what the fuck? The Feminist Illuminati? How pathetic does a guy have to be to whine that the world is secretly controlled by women? Because you know that women who secretly pull the strings would do in such a way as to leave women everywhere in dire straits. Like if we got power the first thing we wouldn’t do wouldn’t be something practical and helpful—-like helping other women. In terms of conspiracy theories, it’s like the lowest of the low.

$5.00 says he tries to whine about combat next. Bring it on, dude. Bring it on.

Also? I just love it when they bitch about the death gap. Yeah, river, cry me, one of—–you know the drill. You’re responsible for your own death gap there, babe. All that ill-gotten power must be pretty stressful when you keep trying to wiggle out of all the responsibility that comes with it, and then try to stand on the people you’ve victimized and blame them for your sorry ass state.You made your own ulcer.

And my response to her post;

(Yeah, it’s so funny, all those men making laws that deny women their rights!) Mention one law of this sort that doesn’t involve abortion! politicians bend over backwards to favor women over men, starting with affirmative action on forward. Name one bill in the senate that mentions a specifically male issue. (prostate cancer, boys dropping out of school, etc.) Go on, I dare you! (Then fork over the government, fuckwit.) Name-calling is so classy. Not! (Doesn’t matter? Hand over the goddamn keys now. Give it up.) ( Let’s see what happens when we get women controlling things like abortion). Some women oppose abortion. Some men support it. Bad example. (and BC and EC and shit like that. C’mon, babe, bring it on. Let’s prove it, right here and now. ) That’s totally ignorant. Most men don’t run the government anymore than most women do, and you know it. The low-income people among both genders is often way higher than the rich. (women would actually have some say in what goes on). You mean like having a middle-class income, house,air conditioning, money, freedom of travel, longer life than men,etc. You have plenty of say. And you are the majority of voters! More funding goes toward your health concerns. And you want to compare the U.S. to Saudi Arabia? Go there if you want less freedom. Otherwise, stop complaining. If you were paid 80,000, would you stop whining? That would be a good experiment.(before they turned into wife-killers.) There are lot of husband-killers too. Gee, thanks for mentioning the victimhood motivated, violent men card. Women are as violent as men easily. They abuse children and the elderly at higher rates than men. (How pathetic does a guy have to be to whine that the world is secretly controlled by women?)It’s controlled by men and women who favor women’s issues before men’s. If women were 100% of politicians but weren’t good on your favorite social issues, would you be fooled? Not likely. (Womens’ magazines would cover issues other than men.) who’s fault is that? Think about it. Most men don’t support those magazines,to say the least. (Women wouldn’t have to starve themselves to be ‘attractive’)
They can easily make the choice not to do that. Most of the beauty/cosmetic companies, and magazines that make women self-conscious are run by women, not by men. Don’t pin that on us. (you’re responsible for your own death gap there, babe.) Nice hypocrisy. Chivalrous men and women that usually run the government would try to pass a new law if women had the death gap going against them. No equality there either. (because we wouldn’t have this stupid abstinence only shit.) What’s wrong with abstinence? If you just stereotype and complain about men in general, what credible man would want you? Many feminists I’ve seen say that all sex is rape anyway. We have more prudes here, than among right-wing christians. (All that ill-gotten power). You don’t think any women had acquired any ill-gotten power? (must be pretty stressful when you keep trying to wiggle out of all the responsibility that comes with it,) What resonsiblity are you talking about? expand on that. (and then try to stand on the people you’ve victimized)Mostly dead men in wars. If it weren’t for men, you haven’t have houses, phones, cars, roads, supermarkets,a lifespan in the 70’s. etc. You would have nothing. Great.(and blame them for your sorry ass state.) If you really feel that way, give up all items invented by men, leave corrupt America,and go live in The Sudan. Don’t be a lying hypocrite about it. Live by stated values.(You made your own ulcer.) you should take your own advice. ($5.00 says he tries to whine about combat next. Bring it on, dude. Bring it on.) That will be the day. Women taking on a so-called “man’s” responsibilities, not just their “rights.” I support having women on the front lines of a war, actually defending the country the way men have had to. Great idea! I’ll say one thing, Ginmar, Damn those unfair, “patriarchal” men that invented the computer, so you can spew your bile online. Maybe they are “oppressive” after all. HaHaHa

[The authors of the report] found that there wasn’t a statistically significant difference between the results based on the sex of the interviewer.

In fact they “found a few small but statistically significant gender effects.” (See footnote 2 to chapter 2 of the full report (PDF).

This is a nitpick, because ’statistically significant’ means that the differences are of a magnitude which is unlikely to be the result of chance. It does not mean that the difference is significant from the point of view of interpretting the results. However I thought you’d prefer to give accurate information.