Deborah Gough on Disinformation techniques

I have to assume that Deborah Gough intended to show how information can be easily misrepresented in her article for The Age, 20 Aug 2006, titled, "Women hit in message of violence".
But I am surprised that the editors at The Age would let her publish something like this without identifying it as a spoof.

The article begins by designating men's rights groups as "RADICAL" for succeeding in putting forth for the public the reality of domestic violence and abuse. These facts are supported by numerous (over 240 in recent years according to fathers4equality spokesperson James Adams) studies, but also common sense and experience: That women can be just as violent as men.

Even more, the studies consistently indicate that women are abusive in emotional and verbal ways, which arguably cause more long-term damage to all involved. -- But Ms Gough, in her apparent example of disinformation, has avoided mentioning such facts.
With the recent changes to federal and state laws which define emotional and verbal abuse as domestic violence -- distinguishing 'domestic violence' from 'violence' and, perhaps even 'intimate partner violence' -- future studies may show that women are more abusive than men in Australia.

You do have to give Ms Gough credit for identifying this as a propaganda war though. It is, more correctly, an effort against disinformation from what have been poorly identified as "feminists" by many. Feminists are interested in equality before the law for all people, regardless of gender, just as are the mens and fathers rights groups.
That's why there has been a growing support amongst feminists for the efforts of mens and fathers rights groups. Obviously, this exposition of reality doesn't please many of the radical feminist groups, but The Age should be more interested in publishing facts, not more propaganda.

Next, the article tells of "a survey released to The Age" where

"Experts say that a dramatic shift in public opinion is stemming from the rise in volume of fathers' groups who say women are as violent as men in relationships. One organisation has also said that the federally funded Mensline television advertisement could also be a factor."

So far, we have an unnamed survey from an unnamed source which resents the facts coming out; and an unnamed organization that blames the explication of the facts on an advertisement from MensLine -- or is that a credit to the MensLine ad?

That's the MensLine ad that shows a father saddened when his daughter has to leave. The one that women's groups say demonizes women. You can draw your own conclusions there. The ad makes no comment about women. It portrays the feelings of any father at that moment.
Is it that anything that humanizes men demonizes women?

The unnamed survey is then subtly associated with the Australian Burea of Statistics Personal Violence Survey, although without using the capital letters that would identify the PVS correctly.
Is this another unnamed survey? - or a reference to the ABS study?
I looked over the ABS survey to try to find the source of this statement: "(The ABS study) ..showed women were seven times more likely to be assaulted by a partner or former partner than a male assault victim." But there are no combinations of the statistics from the ABS study that I can find that show anything of the kind.

Two tables that seem to be cited incorrectly (if the ABS survey is being cited)

There are two tables in the ABS study that refer to 'partner' and 'former partner' violence, (-- one table refers to the last 12 months; the other since age 15 --) but no combination of those numbers shows a 7-fold difference.)
What is shown is bad enough: Men are far more likely to experience violence at any age and throughout their lives than women. It does show that 49.9% of men and 60% of women have never experienced violence of any kind since age 15 from all across Australia.
Other tables show that 89.1% of men and 93.5% of women in Victoria have not experienced violence in the last 12 months.

And then there what Goebbels called "the dance of hypocrisy":

"There may be a reluctance to see men as the more violent sex, and an appeal in the idea of gender equality in regards to domestic violence. But the data simply doesn't support this view," Dr (La Trobe University academic Michael) Flood said.

"Men's and fathers' rights groups have been pushing this myth for some time and draw on some actual research but they are very selective in that research," he said.

Yes, Dr Flood, they have been selective. The men's groups have opted not to use biased studies, such as those created with federal funding for the Domestic Violence Clearinghouse, which discount the existance of female on male violence altogether.
Dr Flood is illustrating the political trick of blaming your opponent for what you are doing yourself. -- Another excellent example of disinformation and tactics!

In a final sublety, Ms Gough illustrates how to pretend at fairness while putting forward a biased viewpoint by using a trick of human nature. The first balanced statement is near the end of the piece. She knows that this is a difficult topic for many, and that most people will not read the article to completion.
Yes, despite federal funds heavily spent to put forward the idea that women are not abusive and are not violent towards men, and the fact that the officers of the law, along with state and local officials consistently dismiss or refuse to take reports of female intimate partner violence (or even crime from my own experience) -- the numbers of men reporting violence from their partners or former partners is underreported.

Lone Fathers Association national president Barry Williams said he agreed with the premise that women and men were equally likely to perpetrate violence on a partner.

He said men were reluctant to report violence and police often failed to take action.

And she reports at the very end that 88% of children live with their mothers.
That this reflects the bias in the implementation of the law caused by the continuing disinformation campaigns before the public, Ms Gough again -- in her far too obvious illustration of propaganda -- avoids mentioning.

Superb example

We should all applaud Ms Gough for her efforts. This article is a superb example of how to present few facts from anonymous sources with the prestige of a major newspaper behind it, and even seem to be supported by the sincere efforts of the ABS to provide the facts to the public.