Science

Science, bad science, and pseudoscience: How bad statistics come to life

How do we know whether we can trust what we read? What is a good source of information and what is a bad source? How can we tell between them? Everyone loves to quote statistics. But how can you tell a good statistic from a bad one? When looking at the basis for what seems like a logical, reasonable argument, one must learn to distinguish between science, bad science, and pseudoscience.

In the above paragraph I stated the following “Everyone loves to quote statistics.” It seems reasonable enough. But the fact is, it is incorrect. Common sense should tell us that not “everyone” will love to quote statistics. There is enough diversity out there that we should be capable of finding someone who hates to quote statistics. That’s lesson number one. Absolutes are generally false.

In order to begin, we will need to know how to determine the difference between science, bad science, and pseudoscience. Yes, there is a difference between bad science and pseudoscience. Bad science is still science, but it is poorly done. Pseudoscience isn’t science at all, but it pretends to be. So let’s start with some basic definitions.

Science follows what has become known as the scientific method. It is a rigorous procedure wherein objective findings can be made about hypotheses that can be proven or disproven. The scientific method typically begins with an observation that becomes a statement of a hypothesis. This is a statement that purports to explain a particular phenomenon or a correlation between two or more phenomena. The hypothesis can then be used to make predictions about the phenomena. Once predictions are made, the hypothesis can then be tested via observation or experimentation. These tests will allow the scientist to confirm the hypothesis or to falsify it.

It may or may not be possible to test a particular hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis may become a theory, which is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon. For a theory to be useful, it must be consistent with what is known and have some predictive value. The main difference between a hypothesis and a theory is the amount of evidence that exists to support it. A scientific theory is typically regarded as having enough evidential support to be treated as fact.

The theory of evolution is such a theory. It is consistent with what is known (prior science) and it holds some predictive value. It has also been modified over time in order to remain consistent with what is known. This is another key factor in distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Scientific theory is subject to change. As science advances, prior theories are changed or discarded and new theories are proposed. Thus, while a theory must be well-supported to be treated as fact, it is also understood that it is not fact and that it may be altered as new evidence is found.

Bad science and pseudoscience produce similar results, but are two different things. Bad science follows the scientific method, but uses outdated methods, sloppy designs and procedures, may draw erroneous conclusions, fails to explore alternate explanations of results, etc. it is science that contains errors, omissions, and falsehoods or is incomplete. It might also be based on false assumptions, use faulty reasoning, or poor logic. Two example of bad science that are frequently bandied about as “factual” statistics are Mary Koss’ study from the mid 80s asserting that one in four women will be the victim of a rape or an attempt between adolescence and the completion of college and the Eugene Kanin study indicating that 41% of rape reports are false.

The Koss study had a number of problems, but the worst was that Koss ignored statements by her subjects indicating they had not been victims of sexual assault (or attempts). This places the study dangerously close to the category of pseudoscience. Kanin, on the other hand, used a definition of false allegation that may have been far-fetched and overly broad in some respects.

Another feature of bad science is bias on the part of the researchers buried in the report. This can be illustrated by the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report. The authors of this study intentionally incorporated bias into their design in order to preclude the possibility of finding anything other than what they were looking for. This particular analysis described any gender imbalance that favored women as an area of “equality” while describing any imbalance that favored men as contributing to the disadvantage of women and evidence of discrimination. The report also failed to include categories in which women might be more likely to hold an advantage. This report, even more so than Koss, might qualify as pseudoscience or outright fraud.

James Lett (in Ruscio) described six characteristics of scientific reasoning. These are falsifiability, logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, replicability, and sufficiency. Falsifiability is the ability to disprove a hypothesis. Logic dictates that the premise must be sound and that the conclusion must follow validly from the premise. Comprehensiveness must account for all the pertinent data, not just some of it. Honesty means that any and all claims must be truthful and not be deceptive. Replicability is the idea that similar results can be obtained by other researchers in other labs using similar methods. For this to have any meaning, the methods must also be transparent. In other words, the method used to obtain the results must be described in detail. Finally, sufficiency means that all claims must be backed by sufficient evidence. Any study that does not meet all of these criteria is not scientifically sound.

In the examples above, the Koss study meets the criteria for falsifiability and replicability. The subjects were given a questionnaire and it was possible for them to answer in a manner that would have disproved the hypothesis. Further, other studies have obtained similar results using similar methods. However, the study may fail the test of logic. Koss asserted that an affirmative answer to particular questions indicated that a subject was a victim of a sexual assault or an attempted sexual assault because the questions described these offenses in such a manner as to be consistent with the legal definitions.

But what Koss failed to consider was that these questions might also elicit responses that did not meet the legal criteria and were therefore, too broad. In fact, after administering the questionnaire, she interviewed subjects who answered in the affirmative. The majority of those subjects denied being victims of a sexual assault or an attempt. She dismissed this denial without any further testing claiming that the subjects simply did not know what constituted rape. While she was honest about her dismissal, she continued with her claim of one in four. This makes her results misleading as she fails the test for comprehensiveness (she does not account for all the data) which leads to the failure of the test for honesty. If the basic premise (that affirmative answers indicate sexual assault) is wrong then she begins with a false premise and fails the test for logic. Simply because her results were falsifiable and replicable does not make them scientifically valid.

Another problem with the logic of Koss’ study is that the results don’t fit the reality so sexual assault reporting on college campuses. There are very few incidents reported on college campuses each year. Koss and many others claim that only a small percentage of sexual assaults are reported and point to studies like hers as “evidence” of widespread underreporting. The problem is that after several decades of attempts to increase awareness and reporting of these crimes, reporting has not increased, and in fact may be decreasing. This discrepancy between the research and the observable reality is an indicator that the research may be faulty. But instead, true believers in the research use the discrepancy to “prove” the hypothesis of underreporting. This is a basic characteristic of pseudoscience as described below.

The Global Gender Gap Report fails nearly every test. It is not falsifiable. The method ensures that there is no way to disprove the hypothesis that women are at a relative disadvantage to men in every country in the world. Beginning with this faulty methodology, it is nearly impossible to meet the demands of the remaining tests with the possible exception of replicability.

The Kanin study fails the test for logic. His basic premise depended upon an adequate definition of a false report. His definition could be considered far too broad and likely included many reports where the women recanted for reasons other than having lied in the first place which may have biased his results by a little or a lot.

Pseudoscience is fake science. It might appear to look like real science, it does not follow the scientific method, ignores contradictory evidence, and isn’t falsifiable (can’t be disproven). There is usually an indifference to facts. Facts that don’t fit are discarded or ignored and the “facts” that are presented have generally not been proven in any scientific way. The research is often sloppy and may include hearsay, news reports, ancient myths, anecdotes, rumor, personal history, or case examples rather than scientific study.

Pseudoscientific research usually begins with a spectacular or implausible hypothesis and searches for evidence that will support it instead of designing experiments that may disprove the hypothesis. It often confuses correlation with causation and pseudoscientists rarely test their theories. When they do test the theories failures are often explained away as anomalies (the spirits just weren’t willing or there was a nonbeliever present). The “science” itself rarely progresses. Some new technology may be incorporated as a way to increase the mystery, but the pseudoscientific theory remains unchanged.

Ignorance and fallacy are used in place of fact. The lack of proof to the contrary proves the pseudoscientific theory. If it can’t be disproven, it must be true. Science hasn’t been able to prove widespread underreporting does not exist, therefore widespread underreporting does exist. They appeal to authority or emotion. “Believe the woman.” “We must take action to protect women.” “We must protect our daughters.”

This is similar to the claim made by Susan Brownmiller that “Rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” It is an appeal to emotion. It is a deliberate attempt to play on the insecurities of women by using their natural fear of being raped. It relies upon a complete redefinition of the word. Rape is no longer a sexual act, it has become a “process of intimidation.” In this same book she also made an appeal to authority. She stated that only 2% of all rape allegations are false. This was supposedly based on statements made by a New York City by sex crimes investigator. It was not a reference to any scientifically conducted study and was eventually discredited.

Another characteristic of pseudoscience is typically a profit to be made. Often, those who make extraordinary claims are selling something, or are attempting to secure funding, or even to advance a political agenda. Rape is a huge industry, especially on college campuses where federal and state funds are used to support research, prevention programs, and counseling centers. This, of course, is where most of the research is conducted and it is conducted by researchers whose jobs depend upon findings consistent with a high prevalence of rape and other forms of sexual assault. Koss received considerable support and assistance from Ms. Magazine in order to conduct her research. Ms. Magazine is a radical feminist publication that pushes a political agenda. Koss credits them with helping to secure her funding and with providing office space and other assistance. Studies funded, conducted, or supported by stakeholders who have a financial or political interest in the outcome should be regarded as highly questionable.

Conclusions and statistics generated by bad science and pseudoscience die hard, if at all. They seem to find their way into research years after being exposed. An example of this is the Super Bowl Hoax of 1993 that alleged that more women are abused on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year. The statement was made without any scientific support and relied entirely on anecdotal evidence. No scientific study has found it to be true. Yet, it continues to be trotted out in various forms on an almost annual basis. Its latest incarnations being the abuse of women during the World Cup; and sex trafficking of minors during the Super Bowl. The problem with such statistics is that repetition breeds belief. The more people who repeat it; the more believable it becomes. Even when we know that the statement isn’t true, the idea it advances often lives on. The Super Bowl Hoax helped generate the fear and media attention that led to the passage of the VAWA in 1994. This legislation eroded some of the most important of our constitutional rights and protections. It also contained explicit language forbidding the funding of legitimate scientific research which might have demonstrated that the basic premise of the law was flawed. The law also forbid funding for services for an entire class of victims, men by denying that this class even exists.

The dangers of bad science and pseudoscience are not only that they establish false beliefs, but that they may also be quite harmful. It is important that we learn the differences between science, bad science, and pseudoscience and that we respond to them accordingly.

References

Brownmiller, S., (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. (I do not have the publisher’s information).

Coker, R. (2001). Distinguishing science and pseudoscience. Quackwatch. Retrieved 6/20/2011 from:http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html.

Hausmann, R., Tyson, L., and Zahidi, S. (2009). The global gender gap report. World Economic Forum. Retrieved on 6/21/2001 fromhttps://members.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2009.pdf.

Kanin, E. (1994). An alarming trend: False rape allegations. Anada Answers (ed.).Ananda Answers. Retrieved 6/21/2011 fromhttp://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html

Koss, M., Gidycz, C., Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 162-170.

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical thinking in psychology: Separating sense from nonsense. Belmont, Ca. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

About Walter Romans (TDOM)

I'm a chef. I'm a shrink. For better or for worse, I'm married with 4 grandkids (that's the better part). Over the last few years I have come to believe that feminism is a hate movement, not the benevolent force I used to understand it to be.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • Eff’d Off

    @TDOM Oh I just adore this article.

    I have long wondered about the femmo’s reliance of magical thinking to peddle their misery. I have never heard of this Koss business but layed out like you have it here it has nowhere to hide.

    Without the bad science and it’s ugly sister pseudo-science then these femsters would be looking at each other and squealing, “..well what do we do now ?”

    @ You got mail Mr Paul.

    [img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Manblobz wank.jpg[/img]

  • Hayden

    Good stuff. I really appreciate the effort and talent that went into this piece.

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

    Great article. When it comes to statistics, most people don’t understand how the data was collected and it’s importance in interpreting the results. The general public doesn’t know the difference and will usually accept anything that is compatible with their world view. Although not perfect, there is a big difference between hard science and soft science.

    Christina Hoff Sommers analysis of rape statistics
    http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

    Another good analysis
    http://www.slate.com/id/2231012

  • codebuster

    A couple of comments [warning… likely to offend some readers, who might find it tl;dr] :-)

    First of all, science, whether it is good or bad or pseudo, is a product of culture, a manifestation of the culture and its priorities. Scientists will be motivated by their own agendas, and for tenured, employed scientists, those agendas must be endorsed by our feminist-dominated academia, if they are to develop careers and cred. And just as we judge people by the company they keep, so too, we should judge science by the company that it keeps – more specifically, by the culture that supports it. A culture that entertains feminism is a culture whose science has demonstrated itself to be bankrupt, as evidenced in science’s failure to confront the absurd and hold it to account.

    Secondly, a compelling science has to hang together across the board, and it does this within the context of an axiomatic framework. If someone asserts that what they do is science, if they do not express their science within an axiomatic framework, then it is not science. It is not even bad science, though we may call it pseudoscience. Evo Psych has compelling relevance particularly with respect to sexual selection, memetics and the first serious attempt to relate biology to culture. But it is not expressed within the context of an axiomatic framework that hangs together. The closest that EP comes to such a framework is Darwinism (natural selection) and maybe even memetics, group-selection theory, epigenetics, etc, but this fails the “hang together” test. It doesn’t resonate with other themes across the board in the same way that Isaac Newton’s and Niklaus Copernicus’ ideas do.

    Thirdly, observation is a crucial aspect of science, and EP is failing this requirement, too. What do I mean by observation? I mean, witnessing something, and following it through to its logical conclusion. For example, some of us might remember my post about the dog-girl. That’s an observation that demands our attention, but our scientific community toss it in the too-hard basket, perhaps in the hope that some genocentric interpretation might provide an explanation later on down the track. But they are destined to wait in vain, because they are not addressing the problem within an axiomatic, big-picture context.

    Fourthly, the most serious problem with bad and pseudo science is that, as an established, contemporary Church with their own priests, altar-boys and popes(scientists, lab technicians, politicians), it has its own dedicated worshippers who are disinclined to question anything. That is, the worshippers defer to their scientific authorities without questioning anything, just as happens in religions.

    We’ve had some terrific ideas expressed on AVFM by those who have taken the red pill – people who question and think for themselves, people who, whether consciously or otherwise, have refused to defer to the established authorities. We are the scientists applying the scientific method in its true spirit. Among us are people who observe and try to place their observations within a broader, axiomatic framework (without necessarily being consciously aware of what they are doing). We have seen how, once we refuse to defer to our “scientific” authorities and begin to question the mainstream, fresh new insights begin to emerge, and pieces of the puzzle begin to fall into place. To the true, observant scientists among us, regardless of whether or not they hold a BSc or MSc, I say well done. Keep up the good work. Keep up the observing and the questioning, because the mainstream has failed us and will continue to do so increasingly from here on in.

    • mongo

      You might be interested in Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, in which he outlines the history of science and details a repeating pattern of conflict, “normal science”, breakdown leading to conflict again, and so the cycle continues.

      Your comparing of some contemporary science to the Church agrees with Kuhn’s description of certain phases in the evolution of all science. Indeed, what we are doing now, in challenging existing social science in the manner that we are, is consistent with the end of a phase of what Kuhn labeled “normal science”.

      I hasten to add that although Kuhn was a physicist, his thesis on science and its development is not scientific itself, but philosophical.

      • codebuster

        Couldn’t agree more. It makes perfect sense that times of social and political conflict should coincide with the emergence of alternative paradigms, when it dawns on people that what they have and the assumptions they’ve made aren’t working.

    • Bev

      I would suggest other things about culture.
      First where a line of research is suppressed. Example breast versus prostrate cancer. The former has been researched scientifically and has been good in that it has improved outcomes, a good result. The later has been supressed due to lack of funds etc. Meaning little or no improvement in prostrate cancer outcomes.
      Second where pseudoscience is used to suppress real science. Larry Summers produced real science in analysing how men and womens brains were different resulting in different responses from men and women. This refuted (at least in part) feminists “nuture” pseudoscience. Result he lost his job.

      • Merlin

        Great Article and very comprehensive indeed…

        @Bev

        “Larry Summers produced real science in analysing how men and womens brains were different resulting in different responses from men and women. This refuted (at least in part) feminists “nuture” pseudoscience. Result he lost his job”

        That’s the reason why you need people with very little to lose by speaking out, because, if they have a position of power and plenty of money, then they will be targeted, as feminists are basically parasites that feed off any lies they can get their trough brigade to feed off too.

        They know how easy it is to coerce many individuals who aren’t worried about if it’s true or not, just as long as it benefits the movement and women in general. Fuck what men think is their motto…

        Well I’ve one for them, and it’s “Watch your backs because we are coming for you”

      • codebuster

        It is unfortunate that Larry Summers didn’t have the guts to stand up to them. I can’t fathom acquiescing as he did, without putting up a fight, when he had the truth on his side. Maybe the payout on his resignation was too substantial to resist. As Merlin points out, it helps to have little to lose.

  • http://deansdale.wordpress.com Deansdale

    “Kanin, on the other hand, used a definition of false allegation that may have been far-fetched and overly broad in some respects.”
    I wonder how this could be true, since Kanin only counted a report as “false” if the accuser herself admitted she lied.

    • http://deansdale.wordpress.com Deansdale

      “the women recanted for reasons other than having lied in the first place which may have biased his results by a little or a lot”
      You know there is no method whatsoever for a statistician to account for lying subjects. You can’t say his research was flawed because his subjects could have been lying. That’s impossible to account for.

      Also, many new reports from different policemen state that more than 41% of rape reports are false, so I reckon Kanin’s research was pretty accurate there and then.
      http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/06/22/austrian-police-chief-claims-that-four-out-of-every-five-rape-accusations-are-false/

      • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

        The basis for the criticism of Kanin’s research stems from the police departments use of polygraphs. Lie detectors have at times been used to intimidate rather than to investigate. Detractors point out that many of those who recanted may have been intimidated into doing so. Also many women who recant do so because they simply don’t want to go through the process of prosecution and trial. further, there are many false allegations that are not recanted at all. Kanin made no attempt to control for any of this. His study is important because it exposed that the problem is widespread, but just how widespread remains in question. I’ve seen more credible studies that place it at 8-12% of all reports as low estimations of the problem. There are others that claim 20% or more, but those may be overestimates. Right now I’m comfortable with stating that it is 8-12% or greater based on what I’ve read.

        TDOM

        • keith

          This is an excellent article, you make an excellent argument for disbelief, which I hold in high value. I’m not a scientist I’m a disbeliever.

          I find the issue of rape psychology synonymous with the issue of porn psychology.

          A British researcher said he couldn’t study the effects of porn because he couldn’t find anyone over the age of 12 that hadn’t been exposed to it.

          The same is true of rape, try to find someone over the age of twelve that hasn’t been inculcated to the politics.

          I’m left to consider that the only way to define rape is a study that includes PET scans. Of course if you pay subjects to participate it’s not rape it’s prostitution.

          Maybe we need to discard the term rape and study sexual enjoyment, or worthwhile sex. Based on that paradigm a lot of women would be imprisoned for being a lousy lay. Of course so would a lot of men. It would just be more fair. Then we could move on to salespeople, lawyers and politicians.

          Maybe if we take the 25% of women assaulted and subtract it from the 40% false allegation the remaining 15% represents the number of people that want or need to get laid, by a statistician. While being peer reviewed, empirically.

          Great article, I really liked the empirical, peer reviewed cleavage.

        • Nancy

          I tink Kanin discusses this possibility of the rape recantation being due to a fear of an additional assault via the police or judicial system. Here’s a quote where he addresses this:

          “The study of these 45 cases of false rape allegations inexorably led to the conclusion that these false charges were able to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, a means of gaining re- venge, and a platform for seeking attention/sympathy. This tripartite model resulted from the complainants’ own verbalizations during recantation and does not constitute conjecture. Of course, we are not asserting that these functions are mutually exclusive or exhaustive; rather, these rape recanta- tions focused on a single factor explanation. A possible objection to these recantations concerns their validity. Rape recantations could be the result of the complainants’ desire to avoid a “second assault” at the hands of the police. Rather than proceed with the real charge of rape, the argument goes, these women withdrew their accusations to avoid the trauma of police investigation.

          Several responses are possible to this type of criticism. First, with very few exceptions, these complainants were suspect at the time of the complaint or within a day or two after charging. These recantations did not follow prolonged periods of investigation and interrogation that would constitute anything approximating a second assault. Second, not one of the detectives believed that an incident of false recantation had occurred. They argued, rather convincingly, that in those cases where a suspect was identified and interrogated, the facts of the recantation dovetailed with the suspect’s own defense. Last, the policy of this police agency is to apply a statute regarding the false reporting of a felony. After the recant, the complainant is informed that she will be charged with filing a false complaint, punishable by a substantial fine and a jail sentence. In no case, has an effort been made on the part of the complainant to retract the recantation. Although we certainly do not deny the possibility of false recantations, no evidence supports such an interpretation for these cases.”

  • Matthew

    Good one, but I have a question,
    all the above required us to know the methodology of the target study.
    What should we do if we can’t?

    For instance, I read some articles about “feminization of poverty”, but none of them managed to tell me how did they obtained those “statistics”.

  • Matthew

    More questions,
    I am planning to discuss something about gender-based oppression with my (male) friends, but I need some statistics to build my arguments. I think an oppressed class should commit suicide more frequently, have poorer health, abuse substance more, and so on (like African American). I planned to find statistics on the following:

    suicide rate
    mental and physical health
    substance abuse
    life expectancy
    crime victimization
    crime rate

    However, I am becoming suspicious of many statistics, due to feminist politics and the fact that not many of them have shown me their methodology.

    Do you have any idea how can I obtain reliable statistics on the above topics? and I hope you could give me rationales.

    Many thanks.

    • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

      For most of what you are looking for, government statistics will do. In general they tend to be more comprehensive and less biased than other sources. However, there are some areas where the political environment has influenced the enforcement of laws in such a manner as to skew the statistics such as domestic violence where mandatory arrest and primary aggressor laws combine with police training and policy to arrest, charge, and convict many men and to excuse women.

      TDOM

  • http://justamanwriting.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-family-court-judges-encourage.html George

    103% of feminists believe their statistics are accurate.

  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com/video/ Perseus

    Outstanding post. Love it.

    Femfucks have irretrievably eliminated the credibility of the pseudo-sciences which they have infected. When I read anything about social sciences, it goes into my mental trash bin. They tried to steal prestige; esteem not granted. Ha bitches. Enjoy toiling away on driveling BS ‘papers’ in your pathetically morbid ‘academic offices’. Chumps. Fucking fakes. Yeay Fu Fux Flan !

  • http://justamanwriting.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-family-court-judges-encourage.html George

    It seems to me that feminism uses statistics to try and prove their slogans. When they cannot, they “massage” the numbers to get the result they wanted. Then they feed the lies to the media who love to print them and get a storm going because it sells their papers. The politicians watch the storm develop and see the chance for more women’s votes. They then chose a side (always female) of the argument and add weight to the lies by throwing tax payers money at the fake “problem.” This encourages the creation of more lies and round and around we all go, down the rabbit hole. Breaking this cycle is difficult but of course, one way is to so saturate the Internet with MRA media so that escaping the truth becomes tougher and tougher. By doing this, whenever someone types in the words “domestic violence” into Google, for example, they find themselves sent to pages full of the truth and which also expose the lies.

    The Wonderland Alice the feminist wanders around in is all based upon illusion. It is the attractiveness of the illusion that draws members of the public to it. Alice comes back to reality when she wakes up from the dream. Our job is to wake her up by slapping her in the face with cold, wet, reality. She will come to her senses only when she understands the dream is over.

    For me, this is why MRA media is so vital. We need MORE Internet Radio and TV. More MRA blogs and more Online virtual newspapers that give the MRM’s view of the world. The only caveat is that we do not have endless sites filled with vitriolic hate because, no matter how justified, it simply turns people away who have no idea why the hate exists. It frightens people off and we need to do the opposite.

    When George Christensen ( http://justamanwriting.blogspot.com/2011/06/when-lunatics-run-asylum.html ) made his historic and courageous speech to the Australian Parliament for example, he did so after looking at the evidence on the MRM’s site he quoted. He was NOT afraid to associate himself with those sites and name them in his speech because what he found there was unimpeachable truth. He knew that when he mentioned them in the House on that day, potentially thousands of people would go to the sites to see what was there. He would not have done so if they were going to face page after page of rage filled, ranting rhetoric.

    It is vital that we turn our anger into something positive because what has happened to us MUST NOT be allowed to happen to the next generation. The best and most effective way, that I can see, to do that is to take the truth and present it in a way that the general public can find attractive enough to want to read. When they do, they will abandon the newspapers on the street and read our stuff because it will have a reputation for telling them the real facts and exposing the origins of the lies and liars.

    We can do this with humour, satire, hard hitting editorials, questioning the status quo; investigative reporting of our own. Cartoons. Films. Documentaries and so on. People will ignore or forgive the amateur nature of our stuff if what they are getting is the truth. Check the download figures for this piece to see what I mean: http://www.archive.org/details/Bull.Busters.Violent.Women That “movie” was put together in 17 straight hours having never used Movie Maker software before and not having a single piece of film to put into the idea. It is terrible in quality but hugely popular for such a poorly made film and the concept of downloading it and copying it to leave in a public place REALLY hit a chord with the young. They loved the idea. The point though is not to blow my own trumpet, but to say ANYONE can do this stuff and make a point. You don’t have to be Fellinni to make a film. You don’t have to be Rothschild to finance it. All you need is imagination and the time to get all the elements together. What is more, when the blog makers and the web master MRA’s out there start to network and cooperate more, these films, spoofs, cartoons or whatever, will be carried by every page and so reach thousands and thousands of people around the world. All of which will be educated into the truth — AND THAT BREEDS THE QUESTIONS WE NEED THE PUBLIC TO BE ASKING.

    We need organised ACTION not organisations. The organisations will come later. As we grow and expand so we can start to make money. Not out of poor MRA’s but out of the public. ‘Become an MRA and get a hell of a discount!’ should be our cry.

    I hope that in time we will have warehouses in every rich Western country that ship second hand computers and accessories like printers, scanners etc., to poorer countries to help them develop and every one will have an MRM stamp on it with MRA instructions for action on the hard drives. All organised by us. Fuck the government. They have done nothing for men to deserve any credit so don’t give them any. WE CAN DO IT OURSELVES. That includes making them feel our presence by not voting for or financing their parties in elections. Chose a local independent party and vote for/ pay for, them.

    What the feminist bitches fear most is men working together because they know once that happens they are dead in the water. It is why they spend so much time and effort trying to divide us. Can you imagine the effects on women if there was a men’s strike around the world? If men withdrew their labour for one month everything those spoilt princesses rely on would shut down. Given time, even that could become a reality. They would find out then that there are more times than they think when a fish needs some local transport to get back into the water. If you catch my drift.

    • Hayden

      Fantastic comment. I would dearly love to see what you just described become a reality. Very well put.

  • Avi

    I think that there is a large issue that this otherwise excellent article fails to address directly, and it is that social legislation, such at VAWA, is largely based on findings, and more often on theories, originating from a single branch of science. That branch is called the Social Sciences. Those include (among others) Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Anthropology, Political Sciences and Gender Studies (yuikes!). What should be noted here is that the scientific methods employed in the Social Sciences are vastly different from those used in other branches, such as Physics or Medicine. I’m talking from personal experience here, so I may be wrong, but the list above is roughly sorted by the degree of the scientific standards applied in each of those field in a descending order.
    Furthermore, most or the replicable social studies rely on statistical inference. Statistics are an excellent and necessary tool for many brunches of science. However, statistical inference is not at all straightforward and requires many years of study and experience to be done properly. What’s worse, statistically drawn conclusions require some considerable knowledge in statistics in order to be understood correctly when presented (hence the anecdote about the statistician who drowned in a pool the average depth of which is two feet). In social studies I have often encountered people who use statistical inference in their research without knowing even the basics. As a matter of fact, a part of my income comes from correcting the statistics for such people.
    Here are some examples of common lapses in the validity of the scientific methodology in the various fields mentioned above:

    Psychology – whenever the average person thinks about psychology, the first name that comes to mind is Freud and his theory. However, this theory is hardly capable of predicting the outcome of childhood events – for example: a child abused by his father may come to distance himself from abusive behavior (which causes anxiety) or reenact those behaviors or be normative. (i.e., An abused child may grow up to become anything whatsoever.) It looks less ridiculous when seen in reverse, as a therapist would – an anxious person may respond well to treatment relating to the abuse he received as a child. This, however useful in practice, does not constitute proof of the underlying theory.

    Sociology and Anthropology – those disciplines, more than any others, tend to throw out (quantitative) statistical analyses in favor of qualitative methods. Those methods largely consist of a researcher going out to the field, talking to some people and then publishing his or hers subjective conclusions (often without publishing the resulting hundreds of pages of conversation transcripts) as scientific findings. This method is called Ethnography. The results can be slightly biased, to say the least. One infamous example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa#The_Mead-Freeman_controversy. For the record, Mead’s study is still considered a classical Anthropological text.

    Economics – here the situation is reversed. Economists are largely very good at statistical methods, sometimes forgetting what those numbers they are dealing with represent. For instance: “Privatization statistically improves efficiency.” OK, but are there any other considerations, like the scope and speed of the privatization? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#Criticisms. (On a side note, there is a also a tendency in Economics to view human beings as an expandable resource, resulting in things like the “scientific” justification of massive layoffs and, in an extreme case, the Ukrainian Famine.)

    I did not write all this in order to discredit the Social Sciences as a whole. Indeed, I think that those sciences bring us important information about humans and human societies. Many of the scientific shortcomings in this field come about due to necessity, not because of unscrupulous scientists. However, it is also unfortunate that the Social Sciences have become highly politicized and often the published studies reflect the authors ideological views rather than valid science. Often, politicians adopt such studies as a basis for policies and laws, either failing to asses their validity and limitations or, which is worse, thinking that the general public will not notice the flawed science. Many radical political doctrines are closely related to such shabby science. Karl Marx, an economist, created communism (no, he did NOT create socialism). Karl Haushofer gave pseudo-scientific validation to Nazism via his Geopolitik. And now we have political correctness and feminism, It may not have been the result of Gender Studies, but there sure is a whole of a lot of interaction between the pro-feminist politicians and academic feminist ideologues.

    • http://justamanwriting.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-family-court-judges-encourage.html George

      That is excellent AVI and I agree with it almost entirely. A part of the problem is the way academia tends to lock its papers away and make them hard to get hold of or even find. I have lost count of the amount of times I have tried to track down a research paper only to find it is locked into a members only site that one cannot become a member of unless one is also qualified in that field. This means that what the public CAN get hold of is only snippets of the available research and this in turn means the full story never gets told. It is also makes very hard to sort the wood from the trees.

      Good stuff.

      • Avi

        Well, this is probably so because of the way scientific papers are published. I’m not sure how well you know this system, so I’ll explain it briefly:
        Members of the academia are under a great pressure to publish their studies because their careers depend on it. In order to publish, a scientist must submit his/her findings to a peer-reviewed journal. Those journals are mostly commercial entities, like any other publication, meaning that they have to earn money. This is the reason why most scientific articles, not only in the Social Sciences, require a payment for online access. If you wish to review some articles you basically have two options – you can buy them online (which is not cheap!) or you can go to any library within an academic institution and access any journals to which this institution has subscribed for. You can probably do this for free. Since most universities and colleges have a Social Sciences faculty, you will probably have no difficulty finding what you are looking for. A hint – scholar.google.com is an excellent way to find any scientific article and in most cases it will automatically give you a link to the full text of an article when used from a campus network.
        One more remark – avoid the “scientific” sections of mainstream journals like the plague! A few years ago there was an article in one of our papers about a positive correlation found between children wearing spectacles and their IQ. The result – a huge increase in sales of glasses for children. Causation, anybody?

    • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

      You’re right. Although the examples I used were from the social sciences, I haven’t yet addressed the social sciences specifically. This article is a precursor for doing just that. I fully intend to discuss quantitative vs. qualitative methodologies and the problems associated with interpreting the results. I’m not a statistician so I probably won’t deal much with statistics, but it is important to know what they mean.

      TDOM

      • Avi

        Great! It’s about time this issue was given a good airing. Please let me know if I can assist.

  • Mark

    This has absolutely nothing to do with the article, but did anyone hear about this couple that was arrested for having sex in front of a restaurant? Apparently, the man posted bail, but his bail was four times greater than the woman’s. Another example of misandry in our legal system.

    “Upon arrival of officers, there were at least five children playing on the beach within 50 feet of where the incident was occurring.’

    Huerta, of Tallahassee, and Douglas, of Lutz, were both arrested and taken to Pinellas County jail.

    Douglas was released the next afternoon after posting a $10,000 bond.

    Huerta remains in custody in lieu of $2,500 bail.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2006842/Young-couple-Erica-Huerta-Steven-Douglas-arrested-having-sex-beach-50-holidaymakers.html#ixzz1Q5wiyknK

    • Renly

      Take a look at this comment on the article:

      “What a prince of a guy. He posts bail but leaves his girlfriend in jail.”

      Once again, the man is responsible for the woman.

  • AntZ

    @TDOM: I am a scientist. As kindly as I can, I need to tell you that you are completely WRONG.

    This is a war. There is no “factually correct” side in a war. There is a RIGHT side and a WRONG side. The only “truth” that matters in a war is that “truth” is relative. The only “evidence” that matters in a war is evidence that proves your point.

    If I can attack feminist man-hate in a “fair and balanced” way, I do that. However, when the only avenue of attack is unfair or unbalanced, I do not hesitate for an instant — because the enemy will never hesitate.

    You mention the fallacies in Eugene Kanin conclusion that 41% of rape reports are false. True, fair, and reasonable. Also completely foolish. The bully pulpit from which the femi-fascist enemy preaches her message of hate is so massive that virtually every adult in America has heard the “1 in 4 women are raped” lie. In contrast, only a few Americans have heard the equally incorrect “41% of all rapes are fabrications” report. When a small lie is used to deflate a HUGE lie, justice is not served by “fair balanced” examination of the small lie.

    Our entire society is living a massive feminist lie:

    “Masculinity is inherently predatory and violent, so men must be mercilessly persecuted for the protection of women.”

    Do not hesitate. Not for an instant. The enemy is vastly more powerful than we are. She directly controls 20,000 powerful institutions, departments, and commissions (and billions of dollars of tax payer money). She indirectly controls the entire oppressive apparatus of the state. The feminist enemy will never hesitate.

    The only way that the tiny MRM voice asking for legal equality & equal protection is if we NEVER hesitate.

    The MRM is a tiny voice lost amidst the maelstrom of feminist hatred. Never hesitate. Never doubt. Strike every time you can, wherever you can, however you can.

    • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

      Antz, I understand where you are coming from, but fighting a house of cards from within another house of cards is probably not a good idea. Your house is just as likely to fall as theirs. Good science is more like a huge gust of wind in the war against the feminist house of cards. the only problem is finding a power source to plug in the fan.

      TDOM

      • AntZ

        I am grateful that there are men like you fighting the “honest” fight. Certainly, pointing out the internal inconsistency, logical fallacies, and intent to deceive that is built into the feminist movement is a helpful thing to do.

        I think I prefer to do my part in a different way. I certainly respect your choice, but I think I am more effective as a foam-at-the mouth ANGRY man. At every opportunity, I will attack feminism, feminists, and the chivalry that underpins their hate movement. I will do this in whatever way I think inflicts the most damage — intellectually honest or not.

      • keyster

        “…the only problem is finding a power source to plug in the fan.”

        We have a source, just not blowing hard enough…yet.

  • Terry

    Only feminists could take a logical discipline like Science, and inject “feelings.”

  • Eff’d Off

    http://www.thelocal.se/34518/20110622/

    Yuk ! There’s a guy… thing, in Sweden who wants everyone to dance around a “Mayhole” instead of the traditional “Maypole” because you guessed it, it’s a phallic symbol.

    —————–
    Alexander Chamberland, a self-proclaimed ‘femme genderqueer’ …believes the traditional Midsummer maypole is a sexist phallic symbol that should be replaced by something of a more feminine flavour.

    Rather than erecting a maypole, he and other members in the group want Swedes to spend time fashioning ‘mayholes’ by digging a hole in the ground or arranging tree branches in the shape of a vagina.

    “It could be all different sizes, laid on the ground, or erected into the sky. It could be built from flowers, fabric, leafs, stones or glass,” says Chamberland, who believes Sweden’s current Midsummer tradition is too “heteronormative”.

    “It’s not just the pole,” he explains.

    “The tradition of girls picking seven different flowers to put under their pillow to dream about their future man is also very heteronormative and patriarchal.”

    As a femme genderqueer who feels neither like a man nor woman, but nevertheless chooses to act in a feminine manner, Chamberland says the goal of the Midsommarfitta initiative is to bring down the phallic symbols everywhere in society but also to get people to look at other holidays with a critical eye.
    ——————-

    • Fizzy

      Oh man. I laughed so hard when I was reading it. I especially love the part about how the pole is fertilizing the earth. What I’m getting from this article is: life is really easy in Sweden. They obviously have nothing worth complaining about.

    • AntZ

      I dance around a “Mayhole” every day. It is called going to the toilet. Think of it as my “yonic symbol”.

    • Einahpets

      Pardon the interruption from a Pagan…

      Obviously that genderqueer cunt is a true idiot (moreso than other genderqueers).

      “Chamberland, a self-proclaimed ‘femme genderqueer’ who launched the group on Facebook in 2008, believes the traditional Midsummer maypole is a sexist phallic symbol that should be replaced by something of a more feminine flavour.”

      The Maypole represents the phallus of the God. The wreath atop represents the vagina of the Goddess. As the Maypole is danced, the ribbons wind around the pole and the wreath lowers, symbolizing the Divine Marriage, the sexual union of God and Goddess. As a man and woman (and no genderqueer fucktards) are needed for successful fertilization/conception.

      And maypoles aren’t even a midsummer tradition. They are a Beltane tradition (which is in May, hence the name “maypole”). The maypole and wreath are fertility symbols. Beltane is the fertility holiday. Midsummer is the day that Light (The Horned God) defeats Dark (The Holly King).

      • Einahpets

        And too add to the stupidity of this… A genderqueer feminist?!?! Really?!?!?
        A true genderqueer (pardon the silliness of that phrase) doesn’t consider itself man or woman. Feminists are all about “women can do anything men can do; woman power; woman, woman, woman…” So again I ask, a genderqueer feminist?!?! Does this THING even have a brain?

  • Fizzy

    Speaking as a scientist: nice job, man! My complaints with feminist writing usually kick in with the statistics and the inference. Their reasoning is so poor that the particulars of the discussion are usually irrelevant: you can tell they’re wrong without even knowing what they’re talking about!

  • keyster

    Meanwhile over at “feministing.com” there’s an article on how fantastic abortion is.
    The contrast in material on men’s sites is palpable and this is yet another reason why. Great article TDOM! Very well done!

    “There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics” – Mark Twain

    Most statisticians don’t even understand statistics.

  • Hayden

    I think the recent scandal involving the U.S. government through the ATF actively supplying guns to Mexican criminals shows that our government is entirely willing to use political policy and the activity of government employees to essentially create statistics to support the liberal feminist position.

    As we now have a president who appears to be completely controlled by women’s organizations and feminist radicals, it would be difficult for me to accept the validity of any new government-gathered, compiled, and analyzed statistics.

    • keyster

      Lose the tinfoil hat friend.
      It’s not quite that bad.

      • Hayden

        Really? I have to get this from you. I have enjoyed your reading your postings and respect most of the things you have to say. However, you seriously believe that I am too radical on this point for you in comparison to others here? Can you explain what you mean with the tinfoil hat comment a little further?

      • Hayden

        Did you read the article that I referenced? It was available for days on the Drudgereport.com. I had friends, who are police officers, comment on how bad the situation is after reading about this.

      • Hayden

        I am coming back to this because the more I think about it the more your comment pisses me off. We have active media suppression of a story about a man burning himself alive at a courthouse’s entry, and you tell me that it is “not quite that bad.” Brother, where are you living because we obviously are not in the same neck of the woods? Things are every bit that bad!

      • Hayden

        And one more in your own words so that we can agree on the issue.

        keyster June 30, 2011 at 11:38

        ““feminist pork” Is that original to you?”
        No, I think it was Phyllis Schlafly or maybe Ann Coulter.
        (que ZenCo and Elmer cringing)

        My point was no one realizes how much money Obama has signed off on towards “women’s issues” in the last 3 years. It’s billions with a “B”. These were not grand events for broadcast on your evening news. It was done very quietly, with winks and nods from the matriarchy…”I’ll sign this in, but keep it on the low down if you would ladies.”

        This was your comment on The-Spearhead. I hope your can tell now how much your crappy little comment hear burns my ass, especially when you have stated on another site that you agree with the position I stated.

        • Hayden

          Please excuse the spelling errors.

  • mongo

    Even if the science is cleaned up, we still have a larger problem to overcome – that of the media willingly promoting anything that benefits women, and suppressing anything that favors men.

    In the last week alone, women defying a driving ban in Saudi Arabia has featured on TV news and print media, but there has been a total white-out of the Thomas Ball self-immolation in the United States. With bias like this, feminists don’t need to lie to get advantage. In fact, it’s probably this uncritical willingness of the media that motivates feminist lying, by rewarding it when it works and failing to punish it in any way when it doesn’t.

    I personally believe the media is our single biggest problem. Imagine the media presented only injustices brought against men, but chose to be silent on all issues of concern to women. The world would immediately look different. Politicians would reprioritize. Script-writers would write differently. Most of us would have completely different senses of what was wrong with the world, what needed fixing, and what was working just fine. The Education system would begin to change. The workplace would start become friendlier. The courts would respond accordingly.

    Media is the most powerful of all the pillars of the establishment. It is the maker of the blue pills. In all wars, capture or destruction of enemy media is a top priority.

    • thehermit

      The MSM media is lapdog of the ruling elites. Cowards. It makes sense how the newspapers, and even the TVs are in trouble, since internet begun to spread.
      My point is to let them disappear, they deserve that. The real problem is not the media- what is a mere tool- but the people behind the media.

      • KARMA MRA MGTOW

        I would suggest the MRM actively try to destroy them by showing these corporate whores up for what they are.

        I have it on good authority along with the company branded, mugs, calendars and other merchandise MSM journalists are also supplied with company branded butt plugs.

        [img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MSM staff issue Butt-Plugs feminist Mk 10 model.JPG[/img]

        Click above for large image.

  • AlekNovy

    TDOM

    I wish you had delivered this article as a live presentation to us all on some stage, because I believe we’d all be giving you a 20minute long standing ovation. Truly excellent work.

  • http://spiritofnature99.blogspot.com/ Dulantha

    Actually pseudoscience and the bad science are related to a false intelligence which is not accepting the real nature of anything. This is an indirect outcome of postmodernism.