Why I do wiki and what’s a woozle!

Dean Esmay has been prodding, poking and asking (read: demanded) that I put this here! Happy now Dean? I’ve to introduce myself – My name is Isaac T. Quill, also known ironically as “ImNotMraBut…”. My motto in life is “Life is far too serious to be taken seriously.” I’ve also been told I have to play nice with the other kids. Huh! I’m persnickety, crotchety, I like digging to find the truth. Some people really don’t like that, so I’m not sure the other kids will like how I play with them. (Evil Grin)

When you have found truths (and the evidence that proves them) you need a place to keep them safe. A Wiki is a great way to do it. That’s why “I Do Wiki”, recording and storing verifiable truths. AVfM now has its own reference Wiki, a place to keep and reference truths. Over the last weeks, there have been a few teething problems, some tinkering and technical tantrums, but now the AVfM Wiki is “Cooking With Gas”. Building and maintaining a Wiki is an endless task, but all red pill munchers know you have to keep maintaining the verifiable truth anyway.

(And for those of you who are lost, you must sign up for an account here, and then, if you wish to edit pages, you must click here and say you wish to be allowed to edit pages. Yes, this is more cumbersome than Wikipedia, but that’s to help us prevent sabotage so we hope you understand why we’re requiring a two-step process. –DE.)

I’ve been working on a Wiki entry that is close to my heart:  “The Woozle Effect,” and I also think it’s a technical term people really need to start using. I know that some people hear the word Woozle and think of mythical animals and Winnie-the pooh, but that says more about your bed time habits and stories.

It’s not a joke. “The Woozle Effect” is a serious scientific term that was coined in 1979 by Beverly D Houghton; a paper showing how data and information about domestic violence was being distorted – how false realities were being created.  “The Woozle Effect was quickly picked up by other experts, but it’s usage didn’t catch on. It seems that feminist-leaning and -focused research has so many Woozles it was scientific suicide to say you had found one. Just ask Richard Gelles, Murray Straus, and Suzanne Steinmetz:

The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present.

The Missing Persons of Domestic Violence, by Richard J. Gelles,
The Women’s Quarterly, September 1999, pp. 18-20

There is nothing funny in finding The truth that wipes out many Woozles and then having your life threatened and your very existence attacked. You hold a Truth that others want to kill. Woozles are not just lies, they incite hatred and violence against the truth.

Many have had to deal with Backlash, Bullying and even Bombs when they have said anything that threatened feminist propaganda. Science and Social Sciences has been no different. Woozles seem to have the capacity to burrow deep into the most interesting places, including the US Congress. Finding Woozles and naming them “Woozle” are dangerous pastimes.

I’ve been asked to put some of the Wiki content here to show folks what they are missing and also what they can help create. In fact by the time you read this the Wiki content is likely to have been expanded  and changed, so you will probably need to check it out over on the AVfM Wiki.

But first I’d like you to see some massive wild Woozles running amok and how they get tamed by Truths. I present to you Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia spouting Woozles. It seems that Politicians and Celebrities love spouting them – they just can’t stop themselves.

Please See Footnote For Details Of Award Status & Awaited Acceptance.

Woozle Effect

The Woozle effect, also known as evidence by citation[1] or a Woozle, occurs when evidence from earlier sources, academic studies or publications are misused, often applying an improper weight. This misleads individuals, groups such as governments and the public in general into accepting claims made using the woozled evidence.

Results of a weak study may be repeated so many times in different sources (e.g., professional journals) that they (undeservedly) achieve the status of a law.”.

Eileen Gambrill, Propaganda in the Helping Professions[2]

Woozles become accepted as real often becoming “Urban Myth[3] and “Factoids“.[4] “..fiction is converted into scientific evidence that will be cited over and over.”[1] The woozle effect has also been linked to “Confirmation Bias“, “Groupthink“, “Belief Perseverance” and “False Paradigm”.[5]

“Red flags for hiding competing well-argued views include phrases such as “Every one knows …” “It is clear that …” “It is obvious that …” “It is generally agreed that …” This kind of unchallenged repetition encourages the woozle effect; if we hear something enough times we assume that it is true.”[6]

Eileen Gambrill, Amanda Reiman 2011 “A Propaganda Index for Reviewing Problem Framing in Articles and Manuscripts”

Woozles are often created by changing language to express a level of certainty that an original source does not contain. Changing Language from “The evidence may show..” to “The evidence shows..” would result in a woozle.[7]

Gelles has observed conflict between standard scientific methodology and advocacy; “Advocacy efforts are often governed by the ends justifying the means. Many advocates have little patience with the timetable of research or social policy – they see the harm inflicted at ground level and strongly feel the need to do something.”[8] Gelles has linked this to the pattern of basic rules being changed and rules of the fictional game TEGWAR[a] used instead. It has also been observed “Results are routinely miscited in a direction favoring activist ideology,..”.[9]

The terms woozle and woozle effect are most frequently found and used in the field of interpersonal violence (IPV) and domestic violence, where the term originated. Other academic papers and publications have used the woozle as a motif and to show the presence of the woozle effect in many areas, such as school management,[10] nursing and gerentology,[11][12] public sector-governmental decision making[13] and construction industry.[14]

1 Origin & Usage

Woozle effect is a term coined by Beverly Houghton in 1979.[b][15][16][17][18][19]

Woozle is the name of an imaginary creature in the A.A. Milne  Winnie-the-Pooh books.

“Tracks,” said Piglet. “Paw-marks.” he gave a little squeak of excitement. “Oh, Pooh! Do you think it’s a – a – Woozle?”

“It may be,” said Pooh “sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. You can never tell with paw-marks.”[20]

Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet start following tracks left in snow believing they are the tracks of a Woozle. The tracks keep multiplying with Pooh and Piglet becoming more and more excited, convinced that they are now tracking many Woozles. Christopher Robin then explains that they have been following their own tracks.

“When going round a spinney of larch trees tracking something, be sure it isn’t your own footprints you are following.”[21]

Pooh’s Little Instruction Book

In 1979 Houghton[15] illustrated the Woozle effect showing how work by Gelles 1974, Published in the book “The violent home”[22] had been transferred from applying to a small sample to a universal sample from a group of less than 100 couples to all US Wives.[23][24]

  •  Gelles conducted a study using police domestic disturbance reports as the source. He explained this very specifically as a way to locate clear examples of domestic abuse. he was not looking for a national or global sample. Gelles reported that this sample showed 55% conjugal violence. The evidence is for a small group, selected only due to police reports and known incidents. The 55% also referred to both men and women as victims.
  •  Straus writing the forward to the book “The violent home”[23] used the 55% figure but without qualifying it.
  •  Langley & levy then cited Gelles & Straus claiming “Estimates that 50 percent of all American wives are battered women are not uncommon”.[24] Gelles & Straus made no such claim or inference in their work.
  • Langley & levy then applied the Woozle to the general population arriving at the figure of 28 million American Wives being battered annually.[16]
  • The 28 Million figure, published in the book “Wife beating: the silent crisis”,[24] then received extensive media coverage, including claims that at least 7 other studies showed the same 28 Million figure to be valid. In accounting for the lack of previous knowledge of what was called “A conspiracy of silence by men”[25] the US Government, Congress, The American Bar Association, police and FBI, were all referred to as having “Culpable Ignorance”.[26][27][25]

In 1982, Professor Walter R Schumm of Kansas State University School of Family Studies and Human Services, warned of the danger of the Woozle effect when he said of it that it could be used to mistakenly “set policy in the prevention and treatment of family violence”.[28]

In 1991 Prof Murray Straus noted:

“In contemporary American society, statistics are used to inform, guide, and justify social policy. The belief in statistics is so great that when the public or a legislature wishes to act and there are no statistics, statistics must somehow be created to fill the vacuum. Unfortunately, these statistics are often biased toward supporting the proposed policy.”[29]

In 2007, Gelles further emphasised the nature of woozles when he likened them to the fictional game TEGWAR (The Exciting Game Without Any Rules).[a] Gelles also traces the issues of woozles and TEGWAR around the field of domestic violence back in time to the 1990s and refers to “Nine Factoids and a Mantra”[8],showing how the woozle had taken precedence and facts were not relevant.

The compelling research evidence solidified around a series of statements that captured the problem of violence toward women. The most common, oft-spoken, and published factoids are as follows:

  • According to the FBI, a woman is beaten every (fill in the blank) seconds in the United States.
  • There are four million women beaten and abused each year in the United States.
  • Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the United States—greater than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.
  • The March of Dimes reports that battering during pregnancy is the leading cause of birth defects and infant mortality [in the United States].
  • Sixty-three percent of young men between the ages of 11 and 20, who are serving time for homicide have killed their mother’s abuser.
  • Seventy-five percent of women who are killed by intimate partners are killed after they attempt to leave their batterers.
  • Women who kill their batterers receive longer prison sentences than men who kill their partners.
  • There are nearly three times as many animal shelters in the United States as there are shelters for battered women and their children.
  • Violence toward women crosses racial and income barriers—battering knows no color other than black and blue.


Gelles analyses each factoid and shows how they are false. For example, the FBI do not collect, collate or publish statistics on battery. The number is derived by making a calculation based upon a study which does not support the claim.[8] Whilst any claim may sound convincing, valid and authoritative it is always false.

Gelles also shows how those outside of a field of study or expertise lack the knowledge and insight to recognise woozles. The woozles simply become accepted in the general population. Until you know the rules you can only assume that the game is being played the right way.

Many have expressed concern that Woozles are not simply accidental:

Propagandists are aware that simply hearing, seeing, or thinking about a statement many times may increase belief in the statement. As Thouless (1974)[c] notes, we tend to think that what goes through our mind must be important. Simply repeating a position increases the likelihood of its acceptance, especially if the statement is offered in a confident manner by a person of prestige and has a slogan quality that plays on our emotions. Results of a weak study may be repeated so many times in different sources (eg. professional journals) that they (undeservedly) achieve the status of a law. Gelles (1982)[d] calls this the Woozle Effect.[30]

Eileen Gambrill (2012) Propaganda in the Helping Professions

In the book “Rethinking Domestic Violence”, Donald G Dutton raises concerns as to gender bias and potential political bias. He states:

Woozles are usually not simply a matter of authentic misreporting. They also reveal a desire to read into the data an a priori position that is really not there, what Bacon calls “idols of the theatre“. … All the data reporting mistakes I have found in the literature, without exception, were made in the direction of supporting feminist preconceptions.”[31]


Dutton (2006) Rethinking Domestic Violence

As far back as 1995 similar concerns were being expressed by Dr Christina Hoff Sommers, when she said:

“More often than not, a closer look at the supporting evidence the studies and statistics on eating disorders, domestic battery, rape, sexual harassment, bias against girls in school, wage differentials, or the demise of the nuclear family – will raise grave questions about credibility, not to speak of objectivity.

When they engage in exaggeration, oversimplification, and obfuscation, the feminist researchers may be no different from such other advocacy groups as the National Rifle Association or the tobacco industry. But when the NRA does a “study that shows . . . ,” or the tobacco industry finds “data that suggest. . . ,” journalists are on their guard. They check sources and seek dissenting opinions.”[32]

Christina Hoff Sommers (1995) Who Stole Feminism?

2 Examples

The examples section of the Wiki page is growing all the time, so If you want to check them out  on the Wiki – Woozle Effect.

Some readers may have an inkling that they have come across something similar to this before. Well you have – the issue of “Evidence by Citation” and how it distorts reality keeps being raised. Here are a few of the AVfM articles that have been addressing the “Woozle Effect”, but not calling it that.

The Woozle is a Pesky Critter that hides so well people don’t even know what to call it when they see it. They recognise the footprints, but the real monster is always just out of sight.

If you spot any wild Woozles please let me know. Both my Keyboard and Quill are just waiting for the little blighters.

Big blighters are even better.


Following Julia Gillard’s amazing video performance with multiple Woozles, she has been nominated for the inaugural “Massive, Arrant & Disingenuous Citation Occasioning Woozle” Award. 

Ms Gillard has yet to acknowledge her nomination for the inaugural M.A.D.C.O.W. award, but it is hoped that she can receive it soon.

  • Dean Esmay

    This is such a terrific article, and by the way, that Wiki is already a thing of beauty better than I had imagined in such a short time, thanks to many people like Isaac.

    I especially think it’s important we all be aware of the Woozle Effect, not just our discourse with our opponents, but internally. There are Woozles floating around the men’s advocacy community which should be addressed, and I sometimes find that in trying to address them we get into fights rather than realizing that it’s all part of just being accurate to the facts and not “who’s right and who’s wrong.”

    So for example I will note one Woozle in men’s movement circles that we often use to smack feminists with: the assertion that women control 80% of household spending. This turns out to be a Woozle. The assertion is not exactly wrong, and it’s not right either: it’s a clusterfuck of bad assumptions, period. There was an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal which documented that, essentially, this assertion is fabricated and the real answer is that it’s unclear who controls most household spending and in what areas:

    The point here is not to say “aha, men are more powerful economically!” or “aha, women aren’t powerful economically.” It is to say that generalizations are hazardous, and this particular generalization is a Woozle of the Woozliest type: someone pulled it out of their ass. And it got repeated by many people (including yours truly) for years on end. The statement is an incautious one at best. It is a Woozle.

    Now if I were true to my own urging I’d go put all that in the Reference Wiki myself, but I am (A) down sick today, (B) working on too many other men’s related projects at the moment and (C) hoping someone else will so I don’t have to, and (D) see C.

    • Isaac T. Quill

      Oh Thank you – “In addition to having murky origins, the number appear to be wrong.” …. me Quill is all a Quiver! Got me search engines running and digging … Me SandBox is filling with snippets as I type

  • Paul Elam

    Welcome Issac. Stellar first contribution to the literature here. Many thanks.

    • Isaac T. Quill

      Thank you sir, and I’m already busy with updating more over on that Wiki. I do like being able to write about things free from people who believe that reality is what a group decide and having to deal with petulant feminists who want Their reality and not Reality Reality :

      “Reaching agreement in a group often is confused with finding the right answer,”. –Maier, Norman R. F., 1963

  • James Huff

    Holy crap! What an impressive piece of work you’ve put together!

    • Isaac T. Quill


  • napocapo69

    Really an impressive article.
    Nothing new, actually, but the analysis is presented in a awesome way!

  • greg

    Great article Isaac. The more I educate myself about society, the more I keep thinking, you can’t make this shit up.

    • Isaac T. Quill

      Greg – I get your sentiment, but I do have to point out that if you take facts and woozle them you can and often do end up with shit … so technically you can make shit up. You can’t make up truth, only lies.

    • Dean Esmay

      It’s interesting to contemplate that for as advanced as we think we are, there are an infinite number of things we don’t know–and odds are we are wrong about many more things we think we know to be true than would make anyone comfortable. (Here I speak of the human condition in general, not the movement per se. But those of us in the movement should always have that ever-gnawing concern that we might be wrong about something. That little worry in the back of your brain that you may be mistaken is the sign of a healthy mind and a free spirit.)

  • Andrew S.

    Discussion on IGN.COM on the Anita Sarkeesian “tropes vs women” videos. Vast majority of comments are against her, and how our “bettors” are trying to turn us into Pc robots. Even the pro-comments thank someone else would be much better at delivering the message for the cause.

    Go on over and show what a fan you are of Anita.

    • Isaac T. Quill

      I know that Anita Sarkeesian (with her oversized earrings) may look Woozleish, but I’m not certain that she is a Full Woozle. She does show evidence of demanding “White Hat Bias” and love of fallacy.

      If you can show me her wozzle, I’ll happily poke it with my quill and see if it squeaks! Woozles do hide in the funniest of places.

      • Andrew S.

        Maybe not a woozle, but you should go poke it just for the fact that she got $150,000 from various feminists and white knights to make some crappy videos about how women are sometimes portrayed as sex objects in video games.

        • Isaac T. Quill

          Woozle, Fraud and Swindle often do get mixed up in people’s mouths. One can use a Woozle for Fraud of all types and to swindle as well – but the opposite is not always true!

          Fraudsters and Swindlers don’t cause Woozles – but they often Exploit them if they are found.

    • Dean Esmay

      This will likely be the subject my my next essay: infililtration of the Red Pill Message into other venues, and how to do it effectively. IGN would be a good place to start. Here’s some (very abbreviated) strategies:

      1) Don’t attack anyone personally.
      2) Don’t swear at anyone.
      3) Don’t generalize about “feminists” or “women” in anything but an elliptical way.
      4) Use humor liberally, but to disarm rather than provoke, if possible.
      5) Don’t let anyone get you angry. If you’re angry, walk away, and come back until you’re not angry. It’s words on the internet, it’s words on the internet!
      6) Don’t overtly identify as MHRA, but do not deny being one if asked: sure you’re an MHRA, so what’s wrong with that? Just don’t wear it like a badge.
      7) Be the 3-dimensional person you are. You still like games, sports, beer, nerd stuff, cars, movies, music, whatever. Be an actual part of the conversation, not a walking argument-machine.
      8) Feel free to break every one of these rules once you have established to your own satisfaction that you have actually mastered rules 1-7 thoroughly and have gotten good enough at them to know when it will be effective to break them.

      These strategies if followed will help you speak about our issues without giving offense (or only when you have calculated that giving offense is the best way, which it usually is not but sometimes, SOMETIMES, is, you will only know when it’s OK to break the rules once you’ve sufficiently internalized them. Seasoned writers will tell you the same thing about the rules of grammar and punctuation: you have to master them before you know when to disregard them.)

      Using this, you can enter endless forums and start slowly turning blue people purple and maybe even red.

      By the way, does it matter if the enemy of human rights for boys and men knows these are our strategies? Not in the least. It does not matter.

      This is turning into an article. Like I said, I’m gonna write it. (I promised Paul another feature article out of me this month, I’ve just been so busy editing other people’s work I haven’t had time to think!)

      • The Real Peterman

        Evidence suggests Dean Esmay doesn’t think!

        • Dean Esmay

          Zing! I know some YouTubers who would agree!

  • Tim Legere


    If Feminism is about Equality, shouldn’t any Inequity (e.g. Ageism) be of Equal concern?

    Jezebel’s comments in the article remind me of the following:

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
    ― George Orwell, Animal Farm

    I simply don’t understand Jezebel’s lack of humanity to specific groups in society.

    • The Real Peterman

      Don’t worry Tim, the writer of that piece will start to worry about ageism in about, oh, 20 years or so I’m sure.

    • Isaac T. Quill

      The Jeeeeezabells really are an odd bunch. They don’t grasp equality just victim-hood. I still wonder at The Amazing Marcotte and her cerebral High Wire Act … where someone writes to the Jeeeeezabells and says “I Raped My Boyfriend” and The Amazing Marcotte decides that NO This Is Wrong – HE IS A MONSTER and gaslighting to play games with the ladies head.

      Here is the link

      The Amazing Marcotte evens says – “The likelier possibility is… and then goes on to say “Statistically speaking,….”.

      You ask about the inability to deal with Equality. First they will have to learn to deal with Reality.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)
    • Paul Elam

      The people doing all the work on the wiki are just amazing. They are the best group of people that ever happened to AVFM and, IMO to the men’s movement online.

  • Paul Elam

    OT but beautiful. National Post just ripped the asshole hypocrites at UTSU a new one. Here is some maintstream FTSU for you

    • Dean Esmay

      Comment left!

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Quote: ‘Instead, CFS calls for official opposition to “campaigns, forums, groups, meetings or events whose purpose is to frighten, intimidate, and/or target women students on campus.” Ah, I see what you did there, CFS.’


    • greg

      That’s pure Misogyny!! Propaganda/Hate Speech from the Patriachy!!

      • Suzanne McCarley

        I know! Isn’t it wonderful?

        • greg

          God Bless! It is Suzanne.

    • napocapo69

      Noted the picture on top the article with the girl showcasing the slogan “men of quality support women equality” and I appreciated the footnote: “and viceversa, surely”

      My personal answer to that (awesome, I must admit) young girl: “sorry dear gender equality is over, I’m for gender neutrality….”

  • baronvonaqua

    If Julia Gillard does make it through to win this “award” (i am sure there will be tough competition) i have the perfect gift to go with it.
    I have been looking for a suitable reason to post it.

  • Greg Canning

    Many thanks Isaac , great analysis, and I will be pursuing the details on the wiki when I get the chance. Of course ideologues of all persuasions are well versed in the technique termed woozle and it’s implementation!

    “But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”

    Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1925), Volume 1, Chapter 6

    • Isaac T. Quill

      Greg I get it that Propaganda, Ideologies and Woozles are all too often found together in an Orgy of Misinformation. The promiscuity can be excessive, and their bastard product simply will not leave home or mature. Woozles are so often like petulant brats. P^)

      As I’ve been Woozle Hunting globally I came across this high quality list from Down Under – Oz land!

      I’m looking to use the excellent sources and references to expand the Woozles Effect listings to show the global nature of these beasties. It’s taking me days to track and verify the sources – It’s just so well done!

      There is a dubious claim that in the UK you are never more than 6 feet from a rat. I’m not sure about the proximity to rats, but I’m fast developing the view that we are never more than an inch from a Woozle.

      • The Real Peterman

        Holy smokes, that’s a long list.

        • Isaac T. Quill

          Good Isn’t it! Someone did lots of homework. P^) It’s amazing what what you find out there. It’s why the Wiki has such value- being able to collect and link from just one place.

          • Greg Canning

            The kudos for the 1in3 site and information their in lies with Greg Andresen, a tireless advocate for the recognition of all victims of family violence and unbiased access to support services regardless of gender or other discriminators.

          • Isaac T. Quill

            Thanks for that Greg. Mind you the one thing that amazes me is how so much “F”ing propaganda is So Racist.

            The 1 Billion rising has such a massive central implication of Not In Our Back Yard, but just over the Horizon. There has been such high quality evidence that Rape Myths correlate with Racism. If you can’t justify the 1 in 3 claim in your own life experience that the only way to justify it is by Othering people in other Nations and races.

            “Co-occurrence of Rape Myth Acceptance, Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Ageism, Classism, and Religious Intolerance” – 2006 (doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9101-4)

            Comical how so many white feminists think that rape mythology is all about men’s views and never about women being stupid and showing their prejudices in public. I’d love to do a study correlating “Mythology Acceptance” against “Feminist Perception”.

            I’m still amazed that so many feminists who claim to want and even do promote equality are so “Privileged” that can’t see the racism, sexism, ageism they promote… and how the pushing of mythology exposes just who is racists and even “How” they are racists.

            Of course, Racism is dynamic. You can use racism to “Other” people over the horizon and make outrageous claims about them. And of course you can also claim they are Other and use that to justify denying that the realities they quantify are not about White Middle Class Women (Most often in the USA).

            I really don’t like W.A.S.P. Feminists – White, Angry, Superior and Proud of it!

            Any feminist who claims to support the 1Billion Woozle just needs to be asked why they are supporting racism. It’s shocking to see just how quickly they run for cover and stop publicly displaying credentials of just how big their mouths are. You need an average sized gob to swallow a red pill – to swallow the mythology of the 1 Billion Woozles you need to be able to swallow an elephant …. in one bite! Amazing how easy it is for some to do just that – and worst they ask for extra portions and manage to swallow all of them with ease too.

  • Never Blue Again

    Great Job. Excellent and congrats to ImNotMRA (Isaac T. Quill)

  • feminismisbullshit

    “Professor Margaret Gordon of the University of Washington did a study in 1981 that came with relatively low figures for rape (one in fifty). She tells of the negative reaction to her findings: “There was some pressure-at least I felt pressure-to have rape be as prevalent as possible . . .. I’m a pretty strong feminist, but one of the things I was fighting was that the really avid feminists were trying to get me to say that things were worse than they really are.”[36]f

    Feminists have a history of ousting anyone even within their own ranks who doesn’t support the idea of male sociopathy”.Data distortion within feminism is nothing new.

  • Fredrik

    I’m not sure where to post this question. What happened to that other guy’s suicide woozle article? (If this isn’t the right place, please move it.)