Dude, it's a poorly documented survey from 2004. The only people who've picked up on it are /r/MensRights and /r/theredpill. If that's all you need to be certain of your views, you should find another place to peddle them. Hubski isn't so gullible.
It doesn't report its methods, it doesn't document decoy questions ("What planet are you on?"), it doesn't report the response rate ("We questioned 5,000 women, 10 responded"), it's questions are biased ("Have you cheated on" vs. "Have you been cheated on"), it hasn't been replicated, the magazine's content is on level with bigfoot chasers, it's a magazine. I've already put more effort into disqualifying your study as you have in defending it. Why should I trust a survey from more than a decade ago whose credibility is somewhere a few orders of magnitude below Cosmo? a.k.a. almost everywhere else on the internet. P. S. Troll harder.other than it's been ignored by feminist websites?
That seems irrelevant. That seems unlikely. Explain how they're biased. It's not a quantum physics experiment, it's a simple poll. So what? It's no worse than the average newspaper. You're just throwing mud at me and hoping that some of it will stick. Also you have no idea what a troll is. Protip: troll =/= person who disagrees with you. Lurk more.it doesn't document decoy questions ("What planet are you on?")
it doesn't report the response rate ("We questioned 5,000 women, 10 responded")
it's questions are biased ("Have you cheated on" vs. "Have you been cheated on")
it hasn't been replicated
the magazine's content is on level with bigfoot chasers, it's a magazine.
Because we have no way of judging the bias of the poll takers or if they're even taking an adequate sample of an opinion. You can't even argue that 5,000 women took that poll. What if a man (or a large number of them) took the poll? What if a single developer troll took the poll with the sole intent of if swaying the data 5000 times? Did the analysis at That's Life! take into consideration possible corruption of their data, what steps did they take to prevent it? We don't know, we have to take the poll taker's evidence as unbiased and true. This is inherently unscientific. The output of the poll is not validated or cross referenced with any other credible studies in the article aside from hear-say from other online polls. The poll should be ignored by feminists, and non-feminsts alike due to the fact it is not rationally persuasive in the context provided by The Scotsman.