In re your migraine's and women, I understand your anology but it is not comparable. To understand the "migraines" of which females do suffer moreso, as a higher stat, one must look at a myriad of data. It can be due to diet, hormones, family DNA, air, water, sleep, pills, medicines, stress, etc.
In the study, in question, it only studies women saying they were "abused". And it is not "diet, hormones, family DNA, air, water, sleep, pills, medicines, stress, etc" as the "target" of what is causing that abuse. The obvious is targeted in the question: "who" is abusing them. If they've received "abuse". It points out other humans be they straight or not-straight. And leaves the question mark in the air which in and of itself is hidious. The study doesn't ask if these women take drugs and come up with these ANSWERS. It doesn't ask WOMEN if they are prone to exaggeration or if there's a family history of it. It doesn't ask women if they are getting adequate rest.
The questions being asked are so nebulous and non-meaningful. It merely posits that "women are being" abused. And all readers are left with the assumption it is males. If people post disagreeing with the study, somehow they are "anti-female"? No.
I didn't miss the response to the "shot" jazz. I just didn't find it relevant.
I don't happen to hold the view that posters who say "things" not PC about the female sex are batterers. I don't hold that assumption. So, I didn't pay that blip in the thread much attention.
What has never ceased to amaze me throughout my life is that the very same women who claim to be raped, abused, mistreated -- return to their "batterer" or go on to find one just like him. This suggests something is wrong with "her", IMHO.
I've always seen it as sort of a "munchausen" sydrome by which some women cling to the attention they get reporting how horrid they are treated by males. This doesn't mean what they are saying is true.
This report is doing the same thing -- trying to draw attention to itself, but not necessarily the real story of "abuse".
And oh, Lord, yes I've read all of Nancy Friday's books. I don't think any amount of "psychologic help" helps women if they refuse to accept responsibility for themselves OR even want to change their "life" choices so they can live beter.
I'm afraid that you misunderstand the standard research method as well as the implication of the examples I gave. Research should not, and this study does not, "just take ONE SIDE." It attempts (and we've discussed the flaws) to isolate a narrow set of variables.
Part of the explanation that I was given for the offending "put you down" question is to measure recall bias and validity of the rest of the responses. I'm afraid that it's been part of the standardized questionnaire for so many studies that removing it would affect interpretation of subsequent studies.
Without studies, there is no justification for screening. Without evidence-based screening, diagnosis will always be impaired by the lack of knowledge of the etiology or root cause. Screening that can lead to the correct diagnosis is significant if there is treatment.
In this case, there is treatment, although we're still more at a stage that's more analogous to whole-body than directed, tight beam irradiation for cancer treatment, partly because we're at an early stage of discovery, both in pathology and epidemiology.
Yes, the abused do return to their abuser. That does not make screening less important.