Feminist Math

How feminists corrupt DV research

Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence

Graham-Kevan’s paper fully documents overwhelming evidence that the “patriarchal dominance” theory of partner violence (PV from here on) explains only a small part of PV. Moreover, more such evidence is rapidly emerging. To take just one recent example, analyses of data from 32 nations in the International Dating Violence Study (Straus 2007; Straus and International Dating Violence Research Consortium 2004) found about equal perpetration rates and a predominance of mutual violence in all 32 samples, including non-Western nations.

Moreover, data from that study also show that, within a couple relationship, domination and control by women occurs as often as by men and are as strongly associated with perpetration of PV by women as by men (Straus 2007). Graham-Kevan also documents the absence of evidence indicating that the patriarchal dominance approach to prevention and treatment has been effective. In my opinion, it would be even more appropriate to say that what success has been achieved in preventing and treating PV has been achieved despite the handicaps imposed by focusing exclusively on eliminating male-dominance and misogyny, important as that is as an end in itself.

Graham-Kevan’s paper raises the question of how an explanatory theory and treatment modality could have persisted for 30 years and still persists, despite hundreds of studies which provide evidence that PV has many causes, not just male-dominance. The answer is that it emerged from a convergence of a number of different historical and social factors. One of these is that gender symmetry in perpetration of partner violence is inconsistent with male predominance in almost all other crimes, especially violent crimes. Another is the greater injury rate suffered by female victims of PV brings female victimization to public attention much more often.

Although there are many causes of the persistence of the patriarchal dominance focus, I believe that the predominant cause has been the efforts of feminists to conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Moreover, these efforts include intimidation and threats, and have been carried out not only by feminist advocates and service providers, but also by feminist researchers who have let their ideological commitments overrule their scientific commitments.

At the same time, it is important to recognize the tremendous contribution to human relationships and crime control made by feminist efforts to end violence against women. This effort has brought public attention to the fact that PV may be the most prevalent form of interpersonal violence, created a world-wide determination to cease ignoring PV, and take steps to combat PV. It has brought the rule of law to one of the last spheres of life where ‘self-help’ justice (Black 1983) prevails by changing the legal status of domestic assaults, by changing police and court practices from one of ignoring and minimization PV to one of compelling the criminal justice system to attend and intervene.

In addition, feminists have created two important new social institutions: shelters for battered women and treatment programs for male perpetrators. However, the exclusive focus on male perpetrators and the exclusive focus on just one of the many causes has stymied this extension of the rule of law and the effort to end domestic violence. Ironically, it has also handicapped efforts to protect women from PV and end PV by men (Feld and Straus 1989; Medeiros and Straus 2006; Straus 2007; Straus and Scott, in press). Consequently, information on how this could have occurred can be helpful in bringing about a change. This commentary identifies seven of the methods.

Methods Used to Conceal and Distort Evidence on Symmetry in Partner Violence

Method 1. Suppress Evidence

Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have withheld results showing gender symmetry to avoid becoming victims of vitriolic denunciations and ostracism (see Method 7 below). Thus, many researchers have published only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberately omitting data on female perpetrators and male victims.

This practice started with one of the first general population surveys on family violence. The survey done for the Kentucky Commission on the Status of Women obtained data on both men and women, but only the data on male perpetration was published (Schulman 1979). Among the many other examples of respected researchers publishing only the data on assaults by men are Kennedy and Dutton (1989); Lackey and Williams (1995); Johnson and Leone (2005); and Kaufman Kantor and Straus (1987).

Method 2.  Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory

In survey research, this method of concealment asks female participants about attacks by their male partners and avoids asking them if they had hit their male partner. The Canadian Violence against Women survey (Johnson and Sacco 1995), for example, used what can be called a feminist version of the Conflict Tactics Scales to measure PV. This version omitted the questions on perpetration by the female participants in the study. For the US National Violence against Women Survey (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000), the US Department of Justice originally planned the same strategy. Fortunately, the US Centers for Disease Control added a sample of men to the project. But when Johnson and Leone (Johnson and Leone 2005) investigated the prevalence of “intimate terrorists” among the participants in that study, they guaranteed there would be no female intimate terrorists by using only the data on male perpetrators.

For a lecture in Montreal, I examined 12 Canadian studies. Ten of the 12 reported only assaults by men. The most recent example occurred in the spring of 2006 when a colleague approached the director of a university survey center about conducting a survey of partner violence if a recently submitted grant was awarded. A faculty member at that university objected to including questions on female perpetration, and the center director said he was not likely to do the survey if the funds were awarded.

Method 3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration

I could list a large number of journal articles showing selective citation, but instead I will illustrate the process with official document examples to show that this method of concealment and distortion is institutionalized in publications of governments, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization. For example, US Dept. of Justice publications almost always cite only the National Crime Victimization study, which shows male predominance (Durose et al. 2005). They ignore the Department of Justice published critiques, which led to a revision of the survey to correct that bias. However, the revision was only partly successful (Straus 1999), yet they continue to cite it and ignore other more accurate studies they have sponsored which show gender symmetry.

After delaying release of the results of the National Violence against Women for almost two years, the press releases issued by the Department of Justice provided only the “life- time prevalence” data and ignored the “past-year prevalence” data, because the lifetime data showed predominantly male perpetration, whereas the more accurate past-year data showed that women perpetrated 40% of the partner assaults.

The widely acclaimed and influential World Health Organization report on domestic violence (Krug et al. 2002) reports that “Where violence by women occurs it is more likely to be in the form of self-defense. (32, 37, 38).” This is selective citation because almost all studies that have compared men and women find about equal rates of self-defense. Moreover, it also illustrates Method 4 (conclusions that contradict the results) because reference 32 (Saunders 1986) reports that 70% of the minor violence and 60% of the sever violence was not in self-defense. Reference 37 (Dekeseredy, Saunders, Schwartz et al. 1977) used a similar method, and got similar results: 37% of the minor violence and 43% of the severe violence was initiated by women. In addition neither of these studies had data on self-defense by men, so neither provides a basis for concluding that violence by women differs from violence by men.

Method 4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not

The studies cited above, in addition to illustrating selective citation, are also examples of the ability of ideological commitment to lead researchers to misinterpret the results of their own research. A study by Kernsmith (2005), for example, states that “Males and females were found to differ in their motivations for using violence in relationships” and that “female violence may be more related to maintaining personal liberty in a relationship than gaining power” (p. 180). However, although Kernsmith’s Table 2 shows that women had higher scores on the “striking back” factor, only one question in this factor is about self-defense.

The other questions in the factor are about being angry and coercing the partner. So, despite naming the factor as “striking back” it is mostly about anger and coercion. Therefore, the one significantly different factor shows that women more than men are motivated by anger at the partner and by efforts to coerce the partner. In addition, Kernsmith’s conclusion ignores the fact that the scores for men and women were approximately equal in respect to two of the three factors (“exerting power” and “disciplining partner”). Thus, Kernsmith’s study found the opposite of what was stated as the finding.

Method 5. Create “Evidence” by Citation

The Kernsmith study, the World Health Organization report, and the pattern of selective citation show how ideology can be converted into what can be called “evidence by citation” or what Gelles (1980) calls the “woozle effect.” A woozle effect occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence mislead us into thinking there is evidence. For example, subsequent to the World Health Organization study and the Kernsmith study, papers discussing gender differences in motivation will cite them to show that female violence is predominantly in self-defense, which is the opposite of what the research actually shows. But because these are citations of an article in a scientific journal and a respected international organization, readers of the subsequent article will accept it as a fact. Thus, fiction is converted into scientific evidence that will be cited over and over.

Another example is the claim that the Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus et al. 1996) does not provide an adequate measure of PV because it measures only conflict-related violence. Although the theoretical basis of the CTS is conflict theory, the introductory explanation to participants specifically asks participants to report expressive and malicious violence. It asks respondents about the times when they and their partner “[…]disagree, get annoyed with the other person, want different things from each other, or just have spats or fights because  they are in a bad mood, are tired or for some other reason.”

Despite repeating this criticism for 25 years in perhaps a hundred publications, none of those publications has provided empirical evidence showing that only conflict-related violence is reported. In fact, where there are both CTS data and qualitative data, as in Giles-Sims (1983), it shows that the CTS elicits malicious violence as well as conflict-related violence. Nevertheless, because there are at least a hundred articles with this statement in peer-reviewed journals, it seems to establish as a scientific fact what is only an attempt to blame the messenger for the bad news about gender symmetry in PV.

Method 6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the Cause of PV

I have documentation for only one case of publication being blocked, but I think this has often happened. The more frequent pattern is self-censorship by authors fearing that it will happen or that publication of such a study will undermine their reputation, and, in the case of graduate students, the ability to obtain a job.

An example of denying funding to research that might contradict the idea that PV is a male-only crime is the call for proposals to investigate partner violence issued in December 2005 by the National Institute of Justice. The announcement stated that proposals to investigate male victimization would not be eligible. Another example is the objection by a reviewer to a proposal a colleague and I submitted because of our “[…] naming violence in a relationship as a ‘human’ problem of aggression not a gender-based problem.” When priority scores by the reviewers are averaged, it takes only one extremely low score to place the proposal below the fundable level. Others have encountered similar blocks; for example Holtzworth-Munroe (2005). Eugen Lupri, a pioneer Canadian family violence researcher, has also documented examples of the resistance to funding and publishing research on female-perpetrated violence (Lupri 2004).

Method 7. Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs

Suzanne Steinmetz made the mistake of publishing a book and articles (Steinmetz 1977, 1977-1978) which clearly showed about equal rates of perpetration by males and females. Anger over this resulted in a bomb threat at her daughter’s wedding, and she was the object of a letter writing campaign to deny her promotion and tenure at the University of Delaware. Twenty years later the same processes resulted in a lecturer at the University of Manitoba whose dissertation found gender symmetry in PV being denied promotion and tenure.

My own experiences have included having one of my graduate students being warned at a conference that she will never get a job if she does her PhD research with me. At the University of Massachusetts, I was prevented from speaking by shouts and stomping. The chairperson of the Canadian Commission on Violence against Women stated at two hearings held by the commission that nothing that Straus publishes can be believed because he is a wife-beater and sexually exploits students, according to a Toronto Magazine article. When I was elected President of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and rose to give the presidential address, a group of members occupying the first few rows of the room stood up and walked out.

Concluding Comments

The seven methods described above have created a climate of fear that has inhibited research and publication on gender symmetry in PV and largely explain why an ideology and treatment modality has persisted for 30 years, despite hundreds of studies which provide evidence on the multiplicity of risk factors for PV, of which patriarchy is only one. Because of space limitations and because I am a researcher not a service provider, I have not covered the even greater denial, distortion and coercion in prevention and treatment efforts. An example is the director of a battered women’s shelter who was terminated because she wanted to ask the residents whether they had hit their partner and the context in which that occurred. An example of governmental coercion of treatment is the legislation in a number of US states, and policies and funding restrictions in almost all US states that prohibit couple therapy for PV.

Finally, it was painful for me as a feminist to write this commentary. I have done so for two reasons. First, I am also a scientist and, for this issue, my scientific commitments override my feminist commitments. Perhaps even more important, I believe that the safety and well-being of women requires efforts to end violence by women and the option to treat partner violence in some cases as a problem of psychopathology, or in the great majority of cases, as a family system problem (Straus and Scott, in press; Hamel and Nicholls 2006).


Black, D. (1983). Crime as social-control. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 34—45.

DeKeseredy, W. S., Saunders, D. G., Schwartz, M. D., & Shahid, A. (1997). The meanings and motives for women’s use of violence in Canadian college dating relationships: Results from a National Survey. Sociological Spectrum, 17, 199—222.

Durose, M. R., Wolf Harlow, C., Langan, P. A., Motivans, M., Rantala. R. R., & Smith, E. L. (2005). Family violence statistics including statistics on strangers and acquaintances (No. NCJ 207846). Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Feld, S. L., & Straus, M. A. (1989). Escalation and desistance of wife assault in marriage. Criminology, 27(1), 141—161.

Gelles, R. J. (1980). Violence in the family: A review of research in the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 873—885.

Giles-Sims, J. (1983). Wife battering: A systems theory approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Hamel. J., & Nicholls, T. (Eds.). (2006). Family approaches in domestic violence: A practitioner’s guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment: Springer.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2005). Female perpetration of physical aggression against an intimate partner: A controversial new topic of study. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 251—259.

Johnson, H., & Sacco, V. F. (1995). Researching violence against women: Statistics Canada’s national survey. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 281—304, July.

Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990’s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 948—963.

Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence – findings from the national violence against women survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26(3), 322—349.

Kaufman Kantor, G., & Straus, M. A. (1987). The drunken bum theory of wife-beating. Social Problems, 34, 213—230.

Kennedy, L. W., & Dutton, D. G. (1989). The incidence of wife assault in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. 21(1), 40—54.

Kernsmith, P. (2005). Exerting power or striking back: A gendered comparison of motivations for domestic violence perpetration. Victims and Violence, 20(2), 173—185.

Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., Lozano, R., & World Health Organization. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Lackey, C., & Williams, K. R. (1995). Social bonding and the cessation of partner violence across generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 295—305.

Lupri, E. (2004). Institutional resistance to acknowledging intimate male abuse, Counter-Roundtable Conference on Domestic Violence. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Medeiros, R. A., & Straus, M. A. (2006). Risk factors for physical violence between dating partners: Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment of family violence. In J. C. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family approaches to domestic violence: A practitioner’s guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment. Springer (also available at http://pubpages.unh.edu/-mas2).

Saunders, D. G. (1986). When battered women use violence: Husband-abuse or self-defense? Violence and Victims, 1(1), 47—60.

Schulman, M. (1979). A survey of spousal violence against women in Kentucky. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). The cycle of violence: Assertive, aggressive, and abusive family interaction. New York: Praeger.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1977—1978). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology, 2, 499—509.

Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17—44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Straus, M. A., (2007) Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female University Students in 32 nations, Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252—275.

Straus, M. A., & International Dating Violence Research Consortium. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7),790—811.

Straus, M. A., & Scott, K. (In press). Gender symmetry in partner violence: The evidence, the denial, and the implications for primary prevention and treatment. In J. R. Lutzker & D. J. Whitaker (Eds.), Prevention of partner violence. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy. S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283—316.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the national violence against women survey (No. NCJ 183781). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

About Dr. Murray Straus

Dr. Straus is a Professor of Sociology and founder and Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. He earned the Award for Distinguished Lifetime Contributions to Research on Aggression, International Society For Research on Aggression, 2008

View All Posts
  • mongo

    An interesting and enlightening summary.

    I was, however, caught by surprise by this comment:

    “Finally, it was painful for mc as feminist to write this commentary.”

    Why should it be so painful as a feminist to note that women are not perfect? Does being a man carry with it the same impossible belief in infallibility? If not, why? If so, why would it be secondary to a feminine ideal?

    • Paul Elam

      I think the pain he referenced was because he found himself having to confront fellow feminists on the corruption, not because his research found gender symmetry in PV.

      • mongo

        A reasonable supposition. The fact that some women are violent didn’t strike me as all that surprising, but the facility with which so many others try to deny this is the real eye-opener.

    • blueface

      The red pill never feels good going down, hence his discomfort.

      His paper does not simply that show “women are not perfect”.

      It shows that the feminist line on domestic violence is a lie.

      Further, it shows the extent to which feminism has corrupted academic integrity across western society. Academic independence is a cornerstone of democracy and this paper shows that it is serious trouble. In other words, you can’t trust “the facts” at all.

      The other ideologies that have impacted on academic independence in this manner were communism, fascism and, before those, the Catholic Church. It has never been good for science or human advancement.

      It has always been used to keep people in subservience through ignorance and fear.

      Further, and this is why it is a cornerstone of democracy, it shows that any and all government policies are not based on logic, reason and the diagnosis of experts. Instead, academia has been reduced to a marketing department for feminism. In two words, propaganda machine.

      This is why, in the area of domestic violence, government policies such as the American VAWA and the Australian Plan, are fundamentally flawed.

      They are using corrupt data to invent a problem, which they are then using draconian laws to solve to make themselves look good. In the end, it will help neither women or men. It will only help those making a career out of it.

      I’m sure the good Dr Straus was pained because he understood exactly what his paper meant.

      The fact that his paper has been ignored by the rest of academia and governments show that Dr Straus was in some aspects wrong.

      The problem is worse than he thought.

  • Robert Full Of Rage

    I want to say something to any man who has been the victim of domestic violence:

    I want you to know it wasn’t your fault. She might have told you it was, but she was lying. The problem is not with you, but with her. I am sorry you were hurt by someone your probably loved. If you are still in an abusive relationship, please do everything in your power to get out of it. Things will only get worse if you stay.

    You might think you are doing the “right thing” by “manning up”, but nothing good will come out of doing those things. In exchange for doing those things, she will give you hate, not love. You might think the abuse isn’t so bad, but you have been brainwashed. Love isn’t expressed in the form of violence.

    Maybe she doesn’t physically harm you, but I bet she takes joy in being an emotional terrorist. You might not have bruises on the outside, but you sure as hell have bruises on the inside. Nothing you do for her is ever good enough. All she ever does is nag, complain, remind you of your shortcomings, cheats on you, and turns everyone against you. You should know she does this intentionally, and she smirks and laughs at you behind your back.

    I don’t know you personally, but I want you to know that at least one person is concerned about you. Society may enjoy laughing at your misery and enabling your abuser’s behavior by yelling “you go girl”, but society is ass-backwards, and anyone who thinks that female-on-male abuse is empowering is a fucking shit-bag.

    I don’t know who you are, but I want you to know that you matter. You are a human being, and you should be treated like a human being.

    Take Care.

    • BeijaFlor

      Jeee-zus McCarthy McGod. At the risk of being scorned here for “tooting my own horn,” I would like to refer to my latest post on “Beyond The Sunset”: “The One That Got Away.”

      It is the tale of my first love, and the episode that taught me of the toxic predatory nature of her love.

  • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

    Amen. Thanks for this publication. I will take the liberty to cite this extensively.

    This is exactly what Human-Stupidity.com is about. We are not, per se, a men’s rights site. We are about lies. falsehood, self deception, about why the truth does not prevail.

    It just so happens that feminism frequently distorts the truth.

    Great post!! Will cite this extensively in a new post of mine.

    • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

      Just published.

      How feminists corrupt Domestic Violence research & warp world politics and legislation. A scientist analyzes how political correctness creates false and misleading research

      We fully recognize this wonderful article. We stress that the same method is used in other issues dominated by political correctness.
      The truth does not prevail. Not even in scientific research. What are the reasons, that the entire world, United Nations. the US government, European Union and many other nations often sincerely believe patently wrong facts? Then, in profound self deception, believing in politically correct falsehoods, patently unjust, wrong and detrimental laws get enacted.

      Human-Stupidity is NOT an anti-feminist site per se. It just happens that feminism is based on systematic logical falsehoods. Human-Stupidity postulates that the evolutionary arms race gifted women with special verbal manipulation skills to offset male superiority in physical strength and economic power in the EEA. We hesitate to mention other such falsehoods, because the anti-feminist men’s rights movement will disagree and hate us for our commitment to the truth in other fields tainted by political correctness. Race and iq, world economics, faulty or correct science, evolution, Creationism, irrational drug policy, child porn, teenage sexuality are other topics where self deception, politically correct dogmatism causes rampant scientific dishonesty.

      Our posts about Robert Kurzban’s theory of hypocrisy, about, evolutionary psychology, faulty science, unhealthy lifestyle tend to get ignored. Interestingly, humor often tells the naked truth, like a court jester.

      True to our motto: Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception we quote this excellent article:

      • Rocco

        I think you’ll find most MRA’s stick to the truth like a craftsman sticks to the solid foundation their house will be built upon.

        Since we agree that the feminst movement is not, sticking to the truth will win this for us in the end.

        As Martin Luther King Jr. said about civil rights movements, the truth will set you free.

        This only works for those actually being oppressed.

        That’s why feminists can’t stand the light of day….like vampires (ok alittle rhetorical flair…..guilty as charged).

        • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls

          No show there is hope

        • Darryl X

          MLK was assassinated. I guess that’s free. Not what I had in mind though.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    Methods Used to Conceal and Distort Evidence on Symmetry in Partner Violence

    From Kitchen to Court:
    What really happened between Jane and John.

    Method 1. Suppress Evidence
    – Jane smacked herself around the lounge room and it was witnessed by the milkman. He was sexually seduced by her and promptly told it was filmed and ready to be uploaded online for blackmail purposes.

    Method 2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
    – Jane always removed John’s mouth constraint when it was feeding time.

    Method 3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration
    – Jane showed the cops a letter from John’s childhood playmate Susan. In that letter Susan said she was upset because John kissed her at the dance and she spilled her grape juice.

    Method 4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not
    – Jane’s lesbian friend a Nordic tree feller named Gwendina Oafshot, vouched for Jane in court citing her own intimate and very personal beliefs on the matter.

    Method 5. Create Evidence by Citation
    – Gwendina Oafshot and her friends, ‘Sistas Heralding Intimate Ties’, or SHIT’s chanted in unison throughout the courtroom hearings, “Fuck you fuck you fuck you.”

    Method 6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the Cause of PV
    – Jane burnt John’s secret diary.

    Method 7. Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs
    John’s family, work mates, past girlfriend and best friend died in motor accidents, food poisoning, a boating accident and a hunting incident respectively, and all within four hours.

    Concluding Comments
    The data is still being analysed and the sampling is small however it should be noted:

    – John’s whereabouts are unclear as the state refuses to reveal the details of it’s prison rotation scheme.

    – Jane’s whereabouts are unclear as her publicist does not have the exact details of her lecture circuit, TV guest appearances and battered shelter appearances.

    – Jane’s book, “Smacked to Freedom” is selling at the unprecedented rate that pulp mill quotas have had Gwendina Oafshot hire a dozen SHIT members to cope with the increased demand.

    This author is in permanent hiding.

    • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls

      This is very real and evident to the extreme in Fed and Family court … expert witnesses are payed $2k to $3k for blatant bigoted reports, out right breach of ethics deliberate misleading and perverting justice, these psychologists etc are raking in over $10,000 a week, bigoted ICL lawyers are making over $16,000 per week.

      But what can be done, state and federal government are behind it …

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    Dr. Murray Straus, wonderful article. On behalf of all I thank you very much for this.

  • AntZ

    “Method 1. Suppress Evidence

    Researchers …”

    Primary data is the only evidence you can trust. For example, feminists like to say that fathers are dangerous around children. Rebutt this lie with the annual Child Maltreatment Reports. Look for a table similar to the 2007 table 3-15 “Victims by perpetrator relationship”, which demonstrates that mothers are more than twice as likely to abuse their children as fathers:

    Mother 269,330
    Mother and other 39,977
    Father 124,761
    Father and other 6,235
    Mother total 70.3%
    Father total 29.7%

    Note that the 2007 report also has a Table 4-5 which shows the same relationship holds true for perpetrators of child murder:

    Mother 367
    Mother and other 96
    Father 208
    Father and other 11
    Mother total 67.9%
    Father total 32.1%

    • Stu

      Yet the courts still give custody to mothers routinely, even though a great deal of them can’t even support them properly without government handouts and contributions from the father.

      If anyone has a report on the delinquency of kids raised by single mothers……compared to single fathers……or any other undesirable outcome……educational, employment…..etc………I’m betting giving custody to mothers results in worse outcomes for kids all round.

      Yet the practice continues……..in the best interests of the child

      • Darryl X

        I think there is quite a bit of information from the Heritage Foundation and Patrick Fagan about outcomes for children raised by single mothers.

  • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls

    How can we stop this abuse ?

    • Stu

      We can’t, we can only educate guys so they know what a fucked and dangerous deal it is getting into marriage, defacto, or having kids. This abuse, will have to run it’s course until it causes total societal breakdown.

      • Bev

        Hence in Australia as Kyll pointed out gendered stats on child abuse were supressed as of 2003. However note sexual abuse (mostly commited by men) is reported by gender(it suits the narrative). Since recent research is now bringing to light the fact that more sexual abuse is commited by women can we expect that if it interferes with the narrative it too will be supressed?

      • Darryl X

        What about guys like me for whom it is too late. What are our options. I’ve been adjudicated and legislated our of existence without enough money left to live on and under permanent threat of imprisonment if I don’t meet my child support obligations. It’s great to educate the next generation, but there need to be some options for those who have already been destroyed.

        • Stu

          Well a great deal of the problem that men face is because so many believe that it wont happen to them, they are different, or their wife or girlfriend is different……or they just remain ignorant of what the laws actually are until they are victims of it. At that point, a lot of men become focused on their personal problem, and focused on a solution to their particular problem………how to avoid or mitigate getting ripped off in the family courts……how to keep having a relationship with their children. How can I save myself from some of these horrors…….and of course if that could be done…….there would be no need for the MRM.

          The fact of the matter is that the only solution to be found is in men acting together as a movement. This look after number one approach is the problem. The guy that thinks the unfair sexist laws do not apply to him because he has found his own personal solution…..a woman who is not like that…..is wrong for a start…….but he is also demonstrating that it doesn’t matter to him if his fellow man is getting screwed over……..as long as he is ok……so he is not willing to do anything…..invest any time, money or effort into combating feminism……..because the problems they cause are other mens problems. Then all of a sudden, when he is victim…..it’s like…..what can I do to dodge the bullet…….me me me……how can I save my own arse.

          Well……you can’t……there is only one avenue for salvation……..and one avenue for revenge…..and its the long road….and the hard road….it’s sticking together and working together to overturn the feminist laws, and expose them and their mangina enablers as the tyrants they are.

          This is a real problem with men, the look after number one, compete against each other mentality. I can’t remember how many conversations on-line I’ve witnesses with guys……in the MRM……talking about how to avoid falling into the traps that feminism has laid for men. Carrying personal video and audio equipment, installing video cams in your home, car etc. All to avoid being a victim of false accusations……..and true…..these things are advisable now…….but a lot of guys focus on mitigating the problems and doing nothing about getting rid of them. It almost seems like a game to them…..ok……the feminists have given me cancer……but I have chemo therapy and radiation treatment equipment installed in my home……I’m safe……ha ha ha…..marriage…..not a problem…..don’t have one…….kids……had a vasectomy you feminist turds……you ain’t going to get me…….I’m too smart. And everything the are saying is true……they are mitigating many of the problems…..but at great effort….and expense……and they shouldn’t have to be doing anyway…….and they main thing of course is……no matter how much the avoid problems for themselves….at this point in time……..feminist legislation just keeps advancing…….you can run…….but you can’t hide……what will they do when they introduce a 30 percent man tax……..don’t work to avoid paying the man tax? There comes a point where mitigating the threats to you personally come at such cost that they are not solutions to problems at all.

          For example, I can tell you how to legally never pay one cent of child support, alimony, or be subject to any further family court rulings again……to have the last word and tell them all to go fuck themselves and for there not to be a damn thing they can do about it. Believe me there is a mitigating strategy you can employ that will make you out of reach……untouchable…….I can’t recommend it though…..so I’m not going too.

          The fact is that mitigating strategies only work prior to being grabbed by the feminist monster. After they have you, you have two choices…..give them the finger and refuse to comply…..but you have to be able to suffer the consequences……or struggle along and try and meet the obligations they impose.

          Even guys who are focused on mitigating strategies but not doing anything to combat feminism will only have temporary and limited protection. And at great cost.

          Marriage ends is divorce and family courts rip men off. Mitigating strategy……..don’t get married…..don’t have kids.

          False rape accusations are a real risk…..mitigating strategy…….be celebrate……or only have sex under video cams.

          Futures feminist governments will introduce massive man taxes to keep forcing men to pay for women…..mitigating strategy…….give up work….earn no money…..live in poverty so I have nothing for them to steal.

          Future feminist governments starts rounding up men for forced labor camps…….mitigating strategy……kill myself to deprive them of my slave labor.

          So my point is……mitigating strategies to not solve the problem for men……they give the individual man temporary reprieve……unless he uses that time to fight against feminism…..they will just keep catching up with you until you have nowhere to run.

          So you see, the MRM is about killing the beast…not running from it……or hiding from it.

        • Stu

          Oh, all that and I didn’t answer the question…..maybe I should go into politics.

          Well, what about you…..what options. You make the MRM your family now…….meet other men dedicated to fighting…..support each other…….vow to make it…..bros before hos. That’s the only chance there is.

          • Darryl X

            “The fact of the matter is that the only solution to be found is in men acting together as a movement.”

            Amen, Brother! An offense to one man is an offense to all. The reason it takes men, who are very independent by nature, so long to rally is because it takes so long to analyze the problem and identify a solution around which we may rally. Women are not encumbered by thought or analysis so they rally quickly but too bad it is misdirected almost all the time.

            I don’t think killing myself to deny feminists my slave labor is a viable response or solution. Remember Thomas Ball who died for our children. Too many men have already died or been marginalized which is why rally is not successful – there aren’t enough of us anymore and the women are the majority voting bloc.

            With the remaining men, I strongly support revolution as an affirmative defense against the violence done to us by an oppressive feminist regime. But when? There is no political, social, legal or financial solution to our delemma, our oppression. Which is real oppression and not the nonsense about which feminists whine.

            I take every opportunity to educate men and women about the problems there currently are. But too many people have been bought off by the feminist regime. That money to buy them off will run out soon as men run out of money that may be stolen as child support and other forms of graft.

            “And the hearts of the children shall be turned to the fathers and the hearts of the fathers shall be turned to the children lest I smite thee with a curse.” Malachi 4:6

          • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls

            We have a duty to crush all Feminist baby killing bigots and start by labeling them as just that FBKB.

          • Darryl X

            The man tax. Yes. I am already there. It costs me more to work and pay child support than it costs not to work. So, why work? To avoid jail. You’d think jail would be irrational because it cost tax payers to put me in jail. It’s just cheaper and better for the economy to leave me out. Since I can’t collect any public assistance and I’m not a violent offender, then what’s the harm? That’s the true definition of a fascist regime. The true definition of slavery. That is what the US and much of the developed world is anymore under a feminist regime. Fascism. Realizing this truth is heartbreaking. But it’s easier to deal with harsh lies than polite truths. I pity those people who are too stupid to distinguish between the two.

      • Darryl X

        I’d say we are already in the middle of total societal breakdown. I frequently consult a website called dollarcollapse.com which is updated daily with information about decline of our economy. A recent article described the four steps in utter destruction of a country: (1) economic collapse (check), (2) political collapse (check), (3) societal collapse (almost there with about one-half of the population at or below the real threshold for poverty and denied their civil and Constitutional rights), (4) cultural collapse. I argue that we have already experienced varying degrees of all four. Certainly cultural collapse involves utter disintegration of marriage and family and separation of children from their fathers. So that has already happened as part of cultural collapse. Our political structure is already completely gone as we have no functioning electoral process (even Jimmy Carter has acknowledged this) and our two-party system seldom if ever accomplished anything productive except pandering to special interests groups (primarily feminists). I don’t think anyone can argue that our economy isn’t already gone, given that our government currently holds children hostage for ransom and uses that ransom from a large fraction of the population to exchange it for political power and influence with another large fraction. I’d say things are pretty well screwed and our fate is sealed. I’d say societal collapse has already happened. A few more people just have to look at our circumstances objectively and acknowledge it.

    • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/ St. Estephe

      Repetition. The hoaxes are perpetrated by the repetition strategy, the cure is to use the same device. The hoaxers are paid for their lies, the truth-tellers are going to have to do it guerilla style. Relentlessly. Win!

      • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

        Repetition, guerilla style. I like that.

    • BeijaFlor

      The only answer I can see, for myself, is –

      NEVER, NEVER, NEVER have children!!!

      Never give any woman access to my baby-batter.

      Never “party” with women, never admit attraction to women, never get caught alone with women; never put yourself into a ‘compromising position’ with a woman.

      Run hot water through your Fleshlight to flush away any trace of your baby-batter.

      Remember that WOMAN IS THE ENEMY.

      I am terribly sad to acknowledge that last statement; I would dearly love to have a sweetheart, a girlfriend, a FWB, maybe even a wife; but when trust has been disavowed, there is no more room for love!

      I cannot love my competitor.

    • Primal

      By systematically shining light on the rape of science for political purposes. FIRE is slowly but relentlessly restoring freedom of speech in academe for us all. Now all that needs to be done is to do something similar in terms of scientific standards. This work is tedious, time consuming, and boring but essential.

      It begins by stating the well-established standards which scholars/scientists insist on for academic integrity. After that, we need to gather the related statements or histories for each school. Academic integrity scores, based on size of the gap between the stated standards and the status quo reality, can be created for each school…as in FIRE’s red/yellow/green rating system.

      There may or may not be legal sanctions for scientific fraud but there surely would be effects on potential enrollment were word to get out that this school or that one is regularly ‘cheating’ so to speak in terms of scientific integrity. One doesn’t see students beating the door down to enroll in Women’s Studies for instance because the verdict is already in on this useless and fraudulent racket. It should be pretty easy to track down that kind of fraud in other related ‘disciplines’ too.

      And yep it’s repetition…cool, clean, quiet and professional…day after day, year after year, decade after decade.

  • Too Much Coffee

    I was looking for biases in feminist research and came across this link for an article from 2008. It basically blames MRAs for a backlash against the VAWA. The author blames “the patriarchy” and mischaracterizes men’s rights activists in the way Dr. Straus’s article describes.


    • Stu

      I tried to read this, but anybody that is using the word patriarchy like it actually exists, in this day and age where men have absolutely zero power in families and relationships is a retarded liar and their prose is not worth even skimming.

      • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

        I had the honor to be listed in the bibliography of that particular paper (by Molly Dragewiecz). Take a look, and you’ll see ‘Fidelbogen’ cited a time or three.

        • Stu

          Ok, I will have to have another look now. Hopefully I find that you are quoted and used as an example of an arch enemy of feminism and that she has the utmost contempt and hatred for you……..you don’t have any mangina skeletons in the closet do you Fidelbogen lol

          • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls
          • Stu

            They really spew out the rubbish in that blog don’t they. Hey Fidelbogen, man are you hated lol. You mustn’t have been practicing your rhetoric discipline you bad boy.

          • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

            I’m not directly quoted anywhere, just mentioned a couple of times among other “sources”.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

            Yes, but secretly you love it don’t you hhhmmm ?

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F


          You lucky bugger.

        • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen


          Actually, I was practicing my rhetoric discipline on that occasion. The purpose of said discipline is not to make yourself non-hated by feminists, but merely to put them in a tighter spot.

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

          Ok ok ok…
          Now I read the article and this bit here got my attention:

          “Don’t know Fidelbogen? Good. You’re lucky. But for those who do wish to know about him and his, errrm, irrational/misogynistic and antifeminist political perspectives and allegiances with uberprivileged whiteboys, see here and here. The latter blog is called… get ready to laugh:”

          See, now I’m a chap with a fair sense of right and wrong and after reading this article I dunno… there’s something about it that makes me think that maybe Mr Fidelbogen you are in fact a rapist.
          Maybe even a killer who’s just fallen through the justice system and in fact has skipped parole and out there on the street up to your old tricks with knives and pills and stuff.

          Think about it from my perspective. I’ve never met you and like the article says, “Don’t know Fidelbogen? Good. You’re lucky.”

          On the fence about this and you need to be accountable too. Maybe I should tell Paul about what I read and then you might be hammer banned.

          Aye, what do you say eh ?

          • Stu

            They are really over the top aren’t they.

            The antichrist is here……and his name is fidelbogen lol

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

            Stu mate,
            It’s astounding the stupidity and paranoia of it, I mean really.

          • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen


            I am flattered that somebody would consider me the antichrist, yet the burden thereof doth sorely afflict me!

            The ANTICHRIST! The enormity of such a thing!

            Cavernous boots to fill, indeed! :~{

  • Roland3337

    The ‘re-print’ of this paper comes at a pretty appropriate time. Fucking “v-day’ man-hate fest is gearing up on college campuses across the country. My alma mater, included. Which makes me ill.

    All of this hokum is built on a lie that I’ve known about since 2006. It was probably my first Red Pill.

  • justicer

    One easy step every MRA can do is email a copy of this acticle to appropriate local officials. Examples:
    – Chiefs of police
    – District Attorneys
    – State Bar Assocations
    – ACLU
    – Heads of any state departments that run social outreach programs like shelters
    – Chairs of academic psychology departments
    – Chair of the APA

    • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

      Sent this to ONE district attorney, acquaintance of mine.

      This should be done systematically. It should be assured that they actually READ it.

      I am ashamed I did not find out about this in 2007 when it was published.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

        Ashamed ?

        Bah ! It was you who led me to this online MRA nonsense in the first place you Misoginy hound dog.

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

          …and my brother once I showed him your site.

    • Darryl X

      All these people are malignant narcissists and will interpret such an article and complaint as evidence that their oppression of you is successful and it will promote more oppression. There is no legal, political, social or financial solution to our dilemma. Only revolution, which is the last option or Forefathers gave us in response to such developments, which they anticipated.

  • Stu

    Why does this guy continue to call himself a feminist when he himself is saying, and has evidence to prove, that they are a pack of liars peddling a hateful ideology and will resort to threats of violence and bombings for those that dissent.

    I’m grateful for his research that shows up feminists for what they are…..but really…….why continue to call yourself one. Oh yeah….must have something to do with NAFALT…….but the ones that aren’t…….aren’t involved in research, politics…dv…..rape hysteria……or any other areas used to demonize and dehumanize men……so in a way all feminists are like that…….because all the politically active ones are…….the rest don’t count.

    • Stu

      Oh sorry…..the rest do count……they remain silent….and continue to call themselves feminists……lending support for those that pretend to speak for all women.

    • BeijaFlor

      Stu, it makes “perfect sense” to me.

      He has invested SO MUCH into the ideology of Femmunism, that it sprains his brain to realize that his Defining Belief has shifted gears in such a way that it is prepared to shove a zucchini up his ass.

      I was “there,” too, years ago, when I participated in the 1986 “March For Women’s Rights” that was all about abortion. I am embarrassed, and appalled, to state that I stood on the steps of the Capitol in Washington, DC holding a banner about “Free Choice.”

      To quote a song from the 1960s, “I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.”

      • Stu

        No actually you were younger then…….and prone to having your dick lead the way for you. That’s one of the biggest problems……the youngest men are the ones most easily lead astray by pussy.

        Think back……which woman was it…….was it the tits…..or the ass that captivated you……or was it just an irresistable desire to be desirable to all woman.

        Look at the feminist protests now…….you’ll see yourself as a young man in there. Can you believe that now, under the draconian feminist governance that exists now……that there are young men still supporting feminists…….marching with them……carrying there signs that claim 12 out of every 4 woman are anal pack raped every 5 mins.

        What regrets will they be having in 30 years time.

        • Darryl X

          “12 out of every 4 women…” Don’t forget by more than one man in a gang – 12 out of every 4 women are anal pack “gang” raped every five minutes. You should do more careful research. LOL

        • Bewildered

          ” That’s one of the biggest problems……the youngest men are the ones most easily lead astray by pussy.

          Think back……which woman was it…….was it the tits…..or the ass that captivated you……or was it just an irresistable desire to be desirable to all woman. ”

          LMFAO! LMFAO! But sadly many of them go on to become full fledged manginas who lose all sense of proportion !

  • Atlas Reloaded

    “Finally, it was painful for mc as feminist to write this commentary.”

    I say Jesus f’n wept. And I hope more feminists experience more ‘pain’ like this. No no, I am not being sadistic. I mean I hope they experience more pain of the red-pill, seeing what they were lead to believe about most DV/PV is utter bullshit. Utter, dangerous bullshit.

    • Darryl X

      They can’t see. Feminists are morally blind. That is a colloquial expression of psychopathy. They don’t have the proper brain organization to see reality unfiltered through their malignant narcissism. It will never happen and attempts to promote it will never work.

  • Ivo Vos

    Politics of fear have always been very effective in mobilizing masses and were very helpful as one of the most efficient instruments of the elites in power. After the transition into the ‘Age of Aquarius’ during the 1970’s it became even more popular when the politics of fear could successfully be applied to the personal sphere as well. Deprived of former protecting institutions the world became not only a place to enjoy personal freedom and exploit it to the fullest of your personal potential, but a place where failure to do so by whatever standards of others became a fearful prospect.
    Instead of more personal freedom, we have become more afraid and less free. We buy into security measures regardless of their effectiveness, we buy whatever stuff that will – according to the salesman or in this case the saleswoman – prevent us from failures like smelling wrong, looking wrong, educated wrong, behaving wrong, driving a wrong and dangerous car, the list goes on and on. And now even the most powerful are bodyguarded throughout their lives from one sealed and fenced area to another. We sure have come a long way with our new personal freedom.
    Fear is probably the strongest emotion to drive human behaviour and whoever can come up with an ‘explanation’ that serves as an imaginable and thereby possible explanation and an explicit or implicit cure to get rid of these nasty emotions will have an obedient audience.
    Today, most ‘explanations’ do not address actual causes and they reinforce fear instead of diminishing it. Gaming will not lead to prevention of sexual failure and invading countries that posed no threat to national security will not lead to greater national security. As a side effect they amplify fear, if only by focussing attention to it, and all of the supposed dangers it is supposed to liberate us from.
    In the case of domestic violence, feminist elites – as part of the existing power elites – have nothing to gain by even starting to search for actual causes and actual working solutions. That would deprive them of their power base, the vast sea of fearful individuals, mostly women, who buy into whatever ‘explanation’ of their fear.
    I am not very optimistic about settling this matter in a rational way. More often than not, any rational argument will be taken out of it’s original context and used as another proof of the feminist elite theory. Men are supposed to act like ‘gentleman’, in other words do a lot of white knighting, and feminist make a mockery out of it and successfully staying on their course of emotional trickery, repackaged as a better morality.
    However, the ‘explanation’ feminist offers is very dangerous for most of the females. While elite feminist may have the illusion that their sheltered homes, security guards, financial power and what not will provide them enough personal safety, a growing number of women will have to do without it, for a host of reasons.
    Single women will face more dangers, and the protection by state authorities is rapidly becoming another illusion. The cavalry, even if it may arrive, will be too late. In feminist run domestic violence centres they are even more vulnerable to all kinds of freedom violating behaviour and indoctrination. The domestic violence centres for women offer a lot, but in the end protection from the dangers in the world is not one of them, only the illusion of protection. Unless you decide to live the rest of your life in this ‘poor women’s’ alternative for a fenced area. In other words, to decide to live the rest of your life as a prisoner, by just another name.
    Children of single woman fare even worse. Instead of offering protection, feminist offer more dangers. This message cannot be stated loud enough and will have to be made more explicit. Feminists exploit your fear, and the only thing they actually offer is a more dangerous place to live in. Their message is not just snake oil, it actually is snake vermin.

    • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls

      Feminism is about control and manipulation, its crowning achievement is ABORTION, an ideal is the sum of its maxims, the axiom of feminism it is an abortion, if a feminist believes in abortion by this premise accept their maxima of self abortion.

      • Darryl X

        Feminism is a political campaign of hate against men and children. It is a cult and a religion. Nothing more. And it is institutionalized in law, politics, society and finance. Throughout the developed world, our feminist governments are snatching and holding children hostage for ransom and using that ransom to buy off a large fraction of the population (mostly women) at the expense of the lives and livelihood of another large fraction (mostly men) in exchange for political influence and power and to satisfy addiction to power and control. Feminism is fascism, and feminists manipulate others with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood. They have no sense of personal responsibility and their reliance on emotions and solipsism rather than facts and analysis absolves them of any responsibility.

    • Kimski

      *Standing Ovation!*

      The most effective weapons against fear is mockery, humor or laughter, from my point of view.

      • Darryl X

        I generally agree, Kimski, but laughter comes pretty hard these days.

  • Just1X

    He should feel pain every time he implies that he is anything like a scientist. Corrupt bunch of children playing dress up with white coats.

    Feminism is corrupt from top to bottom, from when it started with fake research in the Pacific communities to today’s DV research.

    Shame on you deluded twunts. (Though I am prepared to believe that many of them really don’t know any better; they really believe that this bullshit is science.)

    • Stu

      I believe every politically active feminist knows that feminism is built on lies. If they are involved in research, they are involved in the creation of bogus stats. I believe feminists know they are full of shit, but they think the end justifies the means. They believe it is ok to lie, do bogus research, create bogus stats, in order to elevate the divine gender to it’s rightful position.

      The reason they will create a bogus defence for a woman that drugs, ties up her husband, and chops his cock off, is not because they believe any of the bogus convulted non reasoning that you have to engage in to construct a defence, they simply believe that any woman should be entitled to do such things, just because they are angry and feel like it.

  • Phil in Utah

    This article strikes a bitter chord for me. Before I encountered the MRM, I was a Domestic Violence advocate, and naturally my work often brought me into contact with feminists. I thought that their passion about the topic was a sign that they were caring people who wanted to make the world a safer place for everybody. I knew from the get-go that there is plenty of violence against men, so it surprised me that they never spoke about it. I thought they didn’t speak about it because they were genuinely unaware that it was going on. So, I decided to educate them about it. At first, they sounded distressed, but they didn’t change their material to draw attention to men. I asked them about it, and they more or less told me that men were less important than women. I was saddened by this, so I confronted them about it, and then they accused me of trying to ignore female DV victims. That was my breaking point, since I had made clear on many discussions my absolute contempt for men who beat women. I paid attention to their rhetoric with a more discerning ear, and saw that it was anti-male to the core.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

      Phil in Utah,

      Your inside experience would make a compelling article. Would you write up a piece about this ?

      I can safely speak for the lot of us here and say it would be a galvanizing read.

    • Stu

      Hardly any men beat their wives or girlfriends. That’s why feminists have resorted to redefining DV as all sorts of things that THEY actually do more than men…..emotional abuse,….financial abuse….verbal abuse etc etc. There is a chronic shortage of real DV….not enough of the real stuff to justify the continuation of all the programs and funding…….so you have to include more and more ridiculous things to keep the stats up. What will all the millions of parasites do for a living if they don’t artificially inflate the figures.

      Under the feminist definitions of DV….practically every women in a relationship is guilty….and they know this….which is why for example….they are attempting to make DV laws gender sensitive here in Oz…..making females exempt from all their bullshit definitions. Lets face it, if raising you voice in an argument is such a serious thing…..that it has to be defined as violence….then why would somebody be exempt because they possess a pussy instead of a cock. Should we have separate speed limits for women too……no speed limits…..if someone gets hit by a car doing 100mph in a side street…driven by a woman……is the harm less than if it were driven by a man….of course not. So the only conclusion one can come to is that they either know that these things are not abuse that qualifies as violence…..or….that they believe women should be allowed to commit violence.

      I think it’s a bit of both. Although when you look at how pussy passes are handed out to women who commit real violence…..killing even…..it’s pretty obvious that no amount of violence by women against men is enough not to be excused by a feminist.

      • Kimski

        “That’s why feminists have resorted to redefining DV as all sorts of things that THEY actually do more than men…..emotional abuse,….financial abuse….verbal abuse etc etc”

        They really have turned the whole thing into a bizarro version of the Barnum and Baileys Projection Circus. And indeed it is the ‘Greatest Show on Earth’, with the ticket prices to prove it.

        ‘Come watch the clowns, Ladies and Gentlemen. They will perform the most outrageous distortions of reality, you have ever witnessed in your life!’

        • Darryl X

          It would be funny if not for the severe and destructive implications for men and civilization.

          • Kimski

            You’re right.
            It’s either laugh or cry, and I refuse to waste any tears over these a**holes.

      • Lee Quarry

        Contrary to what you say in your first paragraph Stu, I believe an amount of serious male on female DV does exist. Of these cases, in my experience there are a number of common themes – denied by the shelters / DV industry.

        One such case is mutually violent couples, often with drink or drug problems where fights end inevitably with the weaker party injured.

        A second such case is that of women who appear to be sexually addicted to bad boys or, “rough diamond” types. I think these women are possibly the ones who are most in danger of very serious injury.

        A third such case is women who grew up without good relationships or any relationship with their own fathers and who appear to have a serious propensity to bad relationships and repeated applications for restraining orders.

        Although the above three categories are the ones who I suspect keep the shelter industry in business the shelters refuse to admit it.

        The residue includes what you might refer to as genuine victims. Ironically these are often dismissed by the DV industry as not fitting the ideology.

        Note, I am talking here about serious male on female DV. My views on the ever expanding definition of DV and that of female on male DV are another matter.

        • Stu

          I didn’t say that none exists. It’s just not enough to maintain and expand the massive industry that provides careers, status, pensions, to millions of useless pathetic losers who can’t do anything real and productive for a living, and have jobs created for them so they can pretend to be heroes of a victim underclass instead of spending their life on the dole, or mooching of somebody somehow.

          I realize there was a time when it was not so, when there were proportional funding to the problems of DV etc, and proportional responses, but now things are just insane. How many more thousands of people will be employed in the abuse industry because of feminists defining a man spending his own money, without consulting his wife first, and other oppressive garbage laws that feminists bring into existence. These people are spending their lives pretending to solve problems that are not problems, they actually create problems for a living….while pretending to be heroes fighting to solve the problems that do not exist, or are created by them.

          • Darryl X

            Your analysis is the essence of malignant narcissism. Malignant narcissists create a problem and then point fingers and blame and implicate others in the problem. It’s called projection. It’s also manipulation. These are examples or symptoms of severe mental illness. The inability to analyze facts and take responsibility for their participation. And it is institutionalized in law, politics, society and finance. It’s these kinds of developments which have completely turned me off to any relationship with a woman. It’s a pointless and meaningless and always destructive pursuit. I’ve never in my whole life met a woman with whom I may have a constructive and meaninful relationship. Never. That’s a sad statement of the female population.

          • Stu

            That’s your story Darryl, their version is that you have a very small dick, live in your mums basement, smell like BO on steriods, and a bunch of other attributed personal characteristics……I think gay, impotent and rapist were among them. :)

        • Bev

          There have been studies in Australia. The Monash university shows that while males numbers are much less their injuries are more severe. Note the hand of feminism at work here seeking to minimize and discount male injuries. Is not what this article about?

        • Darryl X

          A man’s defense of himself and his children against violence by a woman is incorrectly considered domestic violence. The most common reasons cited by men for physical assault of a woman is defense of himself and/or his children against the violence the woman INITIATED against them. The most common reason cited for domestic violence initiated by a woman is that the man was not being sensitive to her feelings (read: he refused to acquiesce to her insane and irrational attempts to manipulate him which is malignant narcissism and psychopathy). Once you disregard the number of males who defend themselves and their children against a woman’s violence and stop calling that domestic violence and deemphasize it in studies of domestic violence, then women are responsible for most domestic violence (real domestic violence). The women who initiate violence against men and or their children and then suffer a defense are what shelters might regard as genuine victims but they aren’t genuine victims. Instead, they are the primary offenders and shelters are the mechanisms by which these women manipulate the public with the spectacle of their chronic victimhood.

        • Darryl X

          “A third such case is women who grew up without good relationships or any relationship with their own fathers and who appear to have a serious propensity to bad relationships and repeated applications for restraining orders.”

          I think it’s safer to write that women, whether they grow up with healthy relationships or not, are so lazy that even if they had the opportunity for healthy relationships when they were growing up did not invest in them but just tried to manipulate and coerce everyone with whom they had relationships. So, when they grow up, they try to do the same thing with their adult relationships which worked when they were children. They are responsible. It’s not that women seek out men with whom they can have a bad relationship or that they seek out bad men but. Despite the disposition of the man, the woman will make the relationship bad so she can manipulate it for her advantage and the disadvantage of everyone else. Your explanation above makes it sound like the woman is not responsible for her relationship and that a relationship is bad despite her and she is just seeking it out but that is not the case. Women actively engineer these bad relationships and are solely responsible for them in almost all instances. After engineering the bad relationship then they can blame the man for it.

          • Stu

            Yes I’ve seen this many times. Young woman uses tits, ass, and abundant sex, as well as shaming language and threats of withdrawal, to manipulate young man into committed relationship. Usually becomes bored with the man in a number of months….and then starts treating him very badly in order to make the relationship bad……and uses that as an excuse to give him the boot.

          • Kimski


            -Usually by claiming that he no longer is the guy she fell in love with, after having spend a considerable amount of time and energy changing who he once was.

        • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com
        • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

          right. Read Pizzey’s book and publications and see movies on youtube.

          "Emotional terrorist" or the "violence prone" women (Erin Pizzey)

    • Bev

      I applaud your change of heart but offer a criticism.
      Erin Pizzy who set up the first DV shelters in England was so hounded and subject to credible death threats by feminists.that she had to go into hiding. She found that many women in shelters were more violent than the men they were fleeing and said so. It was she who was the first to document that until feminists seized on DV feminism was just another “ism”. DV allowed feminism to grow and get funding. My criticism: if I in my research field I had not looked at all sides I would have been pilloried by my colleagues. It behoves anyone who works in a field to be across all viewpoints particularly if it affects the life of others (my field didn’t). There were upwards of 200 studies showing the feminist viewpoint was wrong. I just wish people had been more inquiring.

  • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls

    So really what would be the clinical definition of feminism, some type of anti social personality disorder derivative? …

    • Darryl X

      Feminism is a political campaign of hate against men and children. It is a cult and a religion. It is malignant narcissim and psychopathy. Nothing more and nothing less. And it is institutionalized in law, politics, society and finance. Throughout the developed world, our feminist governments are snatching and holding children hostage for ransom and using that ransom to buy off a large fraction of the population (mostly women) at the expense of the lives and livelihood of another large fraction (mostly men) in exchange for political influence and power and to satisfy addiction to power and control. Feminism is fascism, and feminists manipulate others with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood. They have no sense of personal responsibility and their reliance on emotions and solipsism rather than facts and analysis absolves them of any responsibility.

  • keyster

    Again, you’re trying to defy a cultural meme that men not only have a higher propensity to be violent, but when they do they’re physically capable of inflicting more damage vis a vis a smaller weaker female.

    Gender Equality cannot be realized until male physical size and strength is mitigated or “neutralized” by government fiat. They won’t allow it to be framed this way, because ironically to do so would be offensive, sexist and disempowering to women. This is why no one cares or censors data when anyone brings up Female on Male DV. It takes away their ability to define “equality”, as it benefits women being “more equal than”…

    In this regard men and women ARE NOT EQUAL, and for men to complain about violent women hitting them is akin to complaining about cute little puppy dogs killing and maiming people as much as pitbulls. It doesn’t compute, it won’t register.

    Feminists protect this flank almost as much as abortion rights, because it feeds the victimhood narrative. Now it’s slyly repositioned as “Domestic Violence Hurts Everyone”…accompanied by an elderly woman or child adorned in splotches of black, blue and red make up, cowering in a corner…ostensibly in fear of a brutish and psychotic man.

    Until there are reports of men being savagedly beaten by women in the home, their battered bodies flooding hospital emergency rooms and video of women taken away in handcuffs to serve hard time…heads will remain in sand.

    Men and Women in our culture are held to a different standard, only when it FAVORS women. Should it NOT favor women, the Thought Police serve to remind you about things like “sexism”, “misogyny” and being FOR violence against women, if you’re not against it or dare question the data behind it.

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      They have hundreds of organizations supporting and lobbying for them (including police and district attorneys)and thousands of studies on violence against women. We have merely a handful of organiztions supporting non-discriminatory laws and a few hundred studies on gender symmetry.

      Scientific empiricism is often rejected by both the left and the right when findings deviate from approved ideological or theological views. The “strange bedfellows” consensus about always-guilty, brute, male perpetrators and always-innocent, pure, female victims speaks to a deeper set of cultural archetypes underlying the shared prejudice of both the left and right on this issue. What is the appeal to “conservatives” of what appears to be a “liberal feminist” framing of this issue, with its use of activist rhetoric? Simply put, it provides a rationale for the further criminalizing of deviance and an expansion of the power of the criminal justice system.

      There is a closed-mindedness shared by the left (“feminist”) and right (“law and order”) perspectives on the issue of domestic violence. Both views share a belief that the exercise of social control is the preferred response. Both share a commitment to the belief that criminal behavior (“battering”) is fully voluntary and strategic, independent of psychological or psychiatric mediation.

    • Primal

      It’s a biological meme for males to be the disposable sex as well…so there will probably always be laughter or indifference related to ‘savaging’ males. We seem to be pissing into the wind when we try to shame women who lie PROUDLY, when we blame women who ‘savage’ males HAPPILY or HILARIOUSLY, and when we males are said to ‘WHINE’ angrily about female-male violence. We need to cool down, carefully observe ALL related memes/tactics, and reposition ourselves so that we can use those memes/tactics to OUR benefit rather than theirs.

  • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

    Method 7 is probably the most effective at manipulating the masses. For the very few who are eager enough to understand the factual/logical arguments of Methods 1-6, Method 7 is what prevents others from bothering to understand. The emotional argument is the initial bias and it’s a big hill to climb.

    Dr. Straus has a distinguished career over 40 years researching domestic violence. He was very feminist in the 70’s and during the 80’s was a part of a growing number of researchers who started investigating further. He coined the term “gender symmetry” and developed the conflict tactics scale that is so vilified by feminists.

    Straus was a presenter at the Ideology to Inclusion conferences in 2008, 2009, but there hasn’t been one since. He’s still a board member of Partner Abuse and is still doing research. I don’t think he was ever a member of NFVLRC.org but that seems to have disappeared recently from the interwebs.

    • Stu

      Sounds like another guy that would be far more anti feminist than he lets on if it weren’t for the fact that he would thrown under the bus and end up selling papers on a street corner for a living.

  • Lee Quarry

    Here is one tactic of the DV industry.

    It conflates every case into a “hard” case.

    So here in the UK what happens for example is that a woman will obtain an occupation order against her partner. (An occupation order is an exclusion order or whatevever you call it in other countries.)

    But the thing is that occupation orders are granted to women without any requirement of violent conduct on the part of a man. In fact a man’s allegation of violent conduct on the part of a woman will lead a court to exclude the man from the home – the rationale only being the existence of conflict between two people.

    So. One more soft case – one more case the DV industry can claim a woman has been saved from potential murder.


  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/ St. Estephe

    If you have any interest in the ORIGIN OF THE WORD “MISANDRY,” you will want to read the linked post, based on fresh research.

    Valuable source material for writers! Satisfaction guaranteed.


  • Alphabeta Supe

    Here’s a very interesting post by Fidelbogen over at his blog The Counter-Feminist. Particularly interesting is the suggested correlation in one of the comments between maternal infanticide and cot death (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome).

    Does anyone know the facts about this?

    • Carlos

      This is a topic that I’ve been interested in for some time. My personal belief is that SID is very real but that the statistics for it are over-inflated, potentially seriously, by maternal infanticide. I recommend treading carefully on this topic though. The last thing you want to do is accuse a woman who has lost a child of having murdered that child unless there is some evidence to support it.

  • Zorro

    “or that publication of such a study will undcrn1ine thcir reputation…”

    Did you catch those errors? Was this article scanned?

    It’s an awesome article, but there are some hysterical spelling errors that only a scanner can make.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F


      …but it’s not the scanner, Feminism makəs a complətə məss of evərything, and likə a virus infectəd a pərfect article.

  • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

    Articles like this make my blood boil. I’ve been experiencing this kind of stuff for the last year and a half while pursuing my psychology degree.

    In one class the book quotes Susan Brownmiller’s “Against our Will” as a credible source on rape studies. It also brings out the 1 in 5 women will be raped before graduating. None of these are scientific studies. They are neither valid or reliable. And even though I hammered the professor for teaching them in class his response was “It’s in the book” as if he wasn’t responsible for vetting the information to make sure it was real.

    They are all fucking liars and their lies will eventually backfire on them.

    This year is a clear example of how that will happen. Between Julian Assange, Dominique Strauss Kahn and Herman Caine, all of whom were accused, tried, and convicted in the public eye and had their careers wrecked or derailed and so far there hasn’t been any evidence of an actual crime.

    These men suffered and I’m sure the feminists are all wet and sticky over it but the truth is millions of men paid attention and have gotten 3 very public doses of the power of women to lie through their fucking teeth.

    They may not admit it openly but I guarantee you a lot more men are skeptical about what women say about men now. These high profile debacles are the kind of thing that will wreck feminism for good.

    • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls

      Women aren’t known for honor or integrity, in fact, women are know not to be trusted “can’t trust a women”, why is that?

      • Bombay

        Because they pride themselves on always being able to change their minds.

        Billy Joel – She’s Always a Woman

  • Primal
  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F


    Much Kudos to our Scatters who as ‘Tossed Salad’ riposted stoutly and precisely to an entitled twat on this thread —> http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/12/19/a-titanic-anniversary-launched-in-the-new-year.

    As you can see it’s about the Titanic disaster, and while Scatters dealt an ace in the deck, the response that came back was everything MRA’s are not.


    Consider the following statistics from the Titanic disaster:

    i have no problem with “women and children first”. what were they going to do? just fill the boats with middle aged men and leave the future to sink in the icy waters??

    Because of people like you THIS* is where I will be on April 15, 2012

    While i understand your point, and that of the provided link, and i agree that in many ways today’s society is anti-male in many ways.

    I still think the situation like that of the Titanic with those men giving way to women and children first, was the right and honorable thing to do.

    If i had a family and there was only room on the last lifeboat for my wife and child, I wouldn’t hesitate to put them both on it while i tried another means of survival.

    And if you say you would take the seat of your child or your wife, because you feel you are more important to society because you are a man…. then you aren’t a man at all.


    I guess even if you never get the last word in it’s a win really, as their parting shot will always expose the mix of unpleasantness, apathy, self centredness and perfect stupidity in a ball of feminist hate.

    Thanks Tossed Salad.


  • Darryl X

    Feminism is a political campaign of hate against men and children. It is a cult and a religion. Nothing more. And it is institutionalized in law, politics, society and finance. Throughout the developed world, our feminist governments are snatching and holding children hostage for ransom and using that ransom to buy off a large fraction of the population (mostly women) at the expense of the lives and livelihood of another large fraction (mostly men) in exchange for political influence and power and to satisfy addiction to power and control. Feminism is fascism, and feminists manipulate others with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood. They have no sense of personal responsibility and their reliance on emotions and solipsism rather than facts and analysis absolves them of any responsibility. Feminism is anathema to civilization and unless it is destroyed, civilization will continue to disintegrate and we will all be condemned to a permanent Kafkaesque form of primitive social organizing in which men are sacrificed routinely. Oh, wait, we already are.

    • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls

      and antisocial sociopathic lying psychotic baby killing cheats.

  • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

    Sorry if I repeat myself. But this is a shocking document. I wish I had known it in 2007

    It shows how academic research is bankrupt, corrupted beyond repair by feminism . It shows the mechanism how it is corrupted.

    And that corruption has led to laws all over the world, from United Nations to European Union down to VAWA in the USA.

    Entire world history changed by systematic falsification of academic research.

    Human-Stupidity.com wrote a post about this article (will this show up as pingback?).

    I would love to locate more articles about such topics. I remember there was an article about the 1 in 4 saga.

    This topic here is fairly easy, because it is simply some number crunching and a few questions. So it is very clear and very simple and easily proven and disproven.

    Some topics are not so totally clear, but still suffer from such one-sidedness censorship and bullying.

    Some divide men’s rights like adolescent sexuality and child pornography persecution. All are clearly based on biased research.

    Less divisive is harassment, where we wrote 2 articles:
    "Objectifying gaze" makes helpless women lose math ability. Feminist researchers want to persecute men, not empower women  

    Weakness is a mighty weapon for fragile feminist crybaby girls: The Sexual Harassment Industry

  • Dannyboy

    This paper by Dr. Straus is so very damning to the abuse industry and the feminist narrative on PV that controls it.
    The fact that it as well seems to have been ignored by the media and the powers that be is very disturbing.
    The fight to change that feminist narrative, that multi – billion dollar beast of an industry spawned by the ugly sisters, is not going to be an easy one. The fight faced is about control and money two things that no industry will ever give up willingly.
    The fact that the PV industry is funded by our respective governments who, turn a blind eye to the PV problem experienced by men, offering little to no services or protection, throws salt in the wounds to those affected by it.

  • keyster

    The corruption begins in full form during the peer review process. “Soft sciences” which are nebulous and subjective by nature, will ALWAYS be biased in favor of feminism…or they will not make it through the peer review process and never see publication.

    Someone like Straus has to circumvent the process entirely and then try and get it through the mass media feminist gauntlet. But then we now have the internet…:)

    • Robert Full Of Rage

      You make a great point about the peer review process. Acadamia is a factory that manufactures indoctrinated “victims.” Anyone who attempts to throw a monkey wrench in the system will be blacklisted. You should see some of the creations of 2012 acadamia. I will use feminism as an example. The “before” and “after” attitudes of female students is eye-opening. Countless women are being molded into the images of Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte on a daily basis. Man-hating is a requirement in college.

      • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls

        The reality is we need to fight back politically by pushing the point … feminists are just and only and nothing more than sicko baby killing bigots … why would anyone support that … that is the message the general public have to taught …

        • Darryl X

          There is no social, political, legal or financial solution to our dilemma. I support revolution as an affirmative defense against the violence done against men and children. Against our oppression. Revolution is the last option our Forefathers left us in response to these developments during the past forty years.

  • http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/ quolls


    • Jack Strawb

      “NO LABOR” ?

  • Steve #789901a

    Damn they’re doing a good job too. Wish I could get even half their funding…


    Nine hundred and thirty seven million dollars every year. You’d think women would be afraid to come out of their houses with that much raping going on.

    How many roads could be built using that money? How many jobs could be created? How many houses for the homeless? How many meals for the hungry?

    • Darryl X

      I think the point is that women ARE afraid to come out of their houses, even though they shouldn’t be. The entire thing is an expression of women’s manipulation of everyone with the public spectacle of their chronic vcitimhood. Oh, you were being sarcastic. LOL

  • http://thedomesticviolenceindustrylies.blogspot.com/ VAWAhorrors

    I call this: 45 years of “Feminist” Domestic Violence Industry Evil Indoctrination…


    45 years of “Feminist” Domestic Violence Industry Evil Indoctrination that is now Indoctrinated into Politics, the Government, Courts, Police and General Public, Encouraging an Epidemic of False Accusations of Sexual Harassment, Domestic Violence and Rape, that:
    – Women are Good, All Men are Violent and Rapists!
    – Women are helpless Victims, Men are Perpetrators!
    – Women need Help and Protection, Men must be Restrained, Prosecuted and Jailed!

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    Fembots want to change definitions of violence? Fine. We’ll change the definitions of punishments.

    For example, a man guilty of “emotional violence” will henceforth be sentenced to drink beer at every meal for a week. The “victim” must bring him said brews, too.

    A man “economically coerces” a female? She gets to massage his testicles. Thrice.

    Turn logic on its head since feminists lack it altogether. If a woman laments having been “spiritually violated,” paint an SV on her forehead and make her wear filled adult diapers for a month.

    And so on.

    They want to spew nonsense? We’ll make them eat their words. Literally.

  • Winstone

    This article, translated into italian, has been read 24000 times in 2 days


    An effective way of increasing the impact is employing neutral web names. For example “stopdomestic violence.com” instead of “avoiceformen.com”.

    • Paul Elam

      We have articles here that exceed those numbers, and we are not neutral.

    • Alphabeta Supe

      Neutrality is the default position of women. For men, the default position is leadership. Articles like the one at http://www.centriantiviolenza.com are most likely read because websites like this are not neutral.

  • TigerMan

    I haven’t had time to check every response to this article yet but I can confirm that feminists have been busy on the wiki for the Conflict Tactics Scale – in November 2011 a wiki editor made a massive deletion of content – all of that content was a rebuttal of feminist criticism of the CTS which was left in the wiki intact!
    At this point I would like to insert an angryface emoticon but since I don’t know how – just take it as red err read!