Misandry in Psychology Part One

This is the first part of a four-part series of articles about the bias against men and boys in psychological research. There is a video companion to this series that summarizes the contents of these articles. A link to this video will appear at the end of the article.
This article is also available in Portuguese.

Most of us are familiar with the male bashing we see on television. Men are portrayed as buffoons and helpless ne’er do wells who consistently need others (women and sometimes children) to problem solve and do the right thing. Most people are tired of this ridiculous bias yet it continues unabated. What most don’t realize is that a very similar male bashing exists in mental health research. The past 40 years has brought us a powerful respect and admiration of women and girls. The problem is that we seem unable to hold both men and women in the highest esteem. As we hold our women up we seem to tear our men down. It’s as if we can only see women as “good” and men as considerably less than good. This binary vision of the sexes gets played out in the male bashing we see on television.  It also gets played out in numerous other venues including mental health research.

This collection of articles will offer you an inside glimpse into the workings of several studies and show how the anti-male bias plays out. We have all grown to trust “research” and when we hear that a study shows that “X is correct“ we tend to automatically believe that “X” is correct. Research has taken on an almost divine ethos that carries the seal of approval of correctness. If science says it, it must be so. The problem of course is that science, especially social science, is less than concrete and is much more slippery than measuring a distance or the tensile strength of a bar of steel. Mental health research is much more vulnerable to values and the ideologies of the researchers. If a scientist believes a certain thing it usually has little impact on his measurements of the tensile strength of the bar of steel. No matter what he believes the measurement will likely be the same.

But what about issues in social sciences where researchers come to the table with a large amount of preconceived ideas, allegiances to ideologies that espouse strong opinions about those being studied or have traumatic life histories that bias them against certain groups? Can those sorts of things influence the “findings” of a social science study? You bet they can. Gone is the impartial judge weighing the evidence and sifting through the data to find the truth. In today’s world of social science research the opposite is happening: researchers are starting at their pre-conceived bias’s and then designing research to prove that bias. As bizarre as that sounds it is demonstrably true in some social science research. You will see some of that within this group of articles.

This sort of bias is not new to social science research.  In the early 20th century social science researchers claimed blacks were the perpetrators and creators of social pathology.  (see Death of White Sociology)  There was something wrong with blacks and because they were “the problem” they were not seen as “worthy” victims.  Numerous studies were done that “proved” blacks inferiority and this influenced the media and the general public reinforcing the prevailing stereotypes. Since blacks were seen as the problem it was a simple step to suspend any inclination to provide them with services.  Why offer compassion and assistance for a group that so obviously simply needed to change their ways? In today’s world it seems that men have replaced blacks as the group that are blamed for social problems and then not expected to be deserving of services not unlike the way Blacks were portrayed in years prior.

We will see this negative framing of men and boys in all three of the studies we will be examining.  Each of the three studies portrays men or boys as the source of the problem.  They go on to simply omit any opportunity for men to be in need of, or recipients of, services.  The third inventory actually takes a more aggressive approach and labels men as “normally” violent, seeking power over women and a couple of other doozies. A few years ago Paul Elam did a related article on the similarity between social science research on black people and now on men.

In the next section we start off with a short summary of a very important paper by Murray Straus titled “Processes explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence.” Straus leads us through seven ways that feminist researchers hid or distorted the data of their studies in order to insure their results would reflect the pre-conceived ideology of females being the victims of domestic violence and men being the perpetrators. Straus’s explanations make very clear how an ideological bias can impact the results of social science research. He describes in detail exactly how they accomplished this. One technique he describes is simply ignoring your own data that contradicts your ideology. Another is to simply not ask questions that might risk obtaining answers that would contradict your thesis. After reading this piece you will have a better understanding of the ways this subterfuge has been accomplished.

The next section describes a 2009 study from Great Britain on teen violence. You will see how the researchers follow Straus’s descriptions by ignoring their own data. The original survey showed that boys were about 40% of the victims of violence but by the time the research was done and the recommendations made the ad campaign that followed was designed to help only girls and to teach the boys how to better treat the girls.  Boys were the problem, girls deserved the services.

The following section features a study on “reproductive coercion.” It will show how the omission of the details about the sample of those surveyed had huge repercussions down stream. In a nutshell the study was done on impoverished African American and Hispanic females. This fact was not reported in the research article, nor reported in the press release, and never showed up in any of the national media articles that followed. It is well known that interpersonal violence is about three times as likely in an impoverished population. By omitting that little bit of data, that the sample was largely impoverished women of color, the ramifications of their study changed drastically from one that applied only to a poor population of women of color to a study that applied to the population at large. This shift resulted in millions of people reading about the study in the national media and being led to believe a message that simply wasn’t justified by the study itself.

The last section looks at the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI). This inventory claims to measure men’s degree of conforming to what it calls “masculine norms.” There are multiple problems with this inventory but the most obvious is its choice of very negative descriptions for what masculine norms are in this culture. The norms include such descriptors as “violence” ”disdain for homosexuality” ”power over women” and ”playboy.” Simply choosing these words to describe men in this country is misandry. This is male bashing. There’s more.

It’s important to see the ways these studies try to influence the public and promote their own ideological biases. Each of these studies was done by researchers who appeared to have strong ideas about men and women and their research conveniently harmonized with their pre-conceived notions. With “science” holding so much power and ability to sway opinions it is critical that we watch carefully how the social sciences use their studies to proliferate their own ideological viewpoints.

The spreading of misinformation has a very negative effect on the population at large but there is no place in more danger of this than in the halls of congress. Our legislators are easily influenced by studies such as those described herein and the likelihood of laws being written based on one sided viewpoints becomes alarmingly high. To make matters even worse our legislators are largely unaware of their own unconscious chivalry and combine that with hysterical research that claims damsels in distress need funding and what you see is billions of taxpayers dollars being spent in a very questionable manner.

Combine these studies with the media, and then the blogs and you get a system that is fed by erroneous data that accepts it as fact and acts on it. One needs to only notice the fact that great majority of people in the US are convinced that women are the sole victims of domestic violence to understand the power of the media and particularly the media in combination with “studies” that are used more for propaganda than for gaining an understanding of the truth.  The next section will explain exactly how feminist researchers told only half the story about domestic violence and in doing so have left the majority of people in the U.S. believing only women are victims of domestic violence.



There are millions of compassionate and loving people in the United States who have been given erroneous information about domestic violence. Over the years the media and academia have offered a steady stream of information that indicates that women are the only victims of domestic violence and men the only perpetrators. We have all been deceived. What most don’t know is that a part of that deception has been intentional and has come from the scientific community. As hard as it is to believe it is indisputable. Most of us had no idea of this deception until recently. More and more is now coming out about the symmetry of victimization in domestic violence.  Men and women are both victims of domestic violence and also perpetrators.

One of the breakthroughs that have helped us identify this deception was the journal response of Murray Straus Ph.D. Straus has been an acclaimed researcher of family and interpersonal violence for many years. In his article he unveils the ways that this misinformation has been intentionally spread via “research.” He shows the seven ways that the truth has been distorted. It is a fascinating yet sobering article that shows how, without actually lying, the researchers were able to distort things and make it appear that it was something that is was not. We all know that once a research study is published the media will latch on and print the results as gospel truth so the media became the megaphone to spread the misinformation once it was inked in the scientific journal. I would highly recommend your reading the full report by Straus.

Let’s go through the seven ways one by one.

1. Suppress evidence. The first type of deceit that Straus describes is suppressing evidence. The researchers would ask questions about both men and women but only report on the answers from women. The half-story would leave readers with the impression that it was only women who were victims even though the researcher had the surveys of male victims on hand they simply didn’t report it. The data on male victims was simply buried while the data on female victims was reported. Straus discusses the Status on Women report from Kentucky in the late 1970’s that was the first to use this strategy.

They collected data on both male and female victims but only the female victims were discussed in the publications. Scientific method is dependent upon creating a hypothesis and testing it. If you get data from your test that is contrary to your original hypothesis this is just as important as getting data that affirms the hypothesis and can be used to adjust your original hypothesis. To ignore ones own data that contradicts the hypothesis is the epitome of disregard to the foundations of scientific inquiry. It leaves the realms of research and enters the realms of propaganda and shaping the outcome to mislead.

2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent With the Patriarchal Dominance Theory. The second method described by Straus was that of simply not asking the questions when you didn’t want to hear the answers. The surveys would ask the women about their victimhood and ask men about their perpetration but failed to inquire about women’s violence or men’s victimhood. If you ask questions that address only half the problem you are certain to conclude with only half the answers. Straus highlights a talk he gave in Canada where he evaluated 12 studies on domestic violence. Ten out of the twelve only asked questions about female victims and male perpetrators. If you don’t ask the questions you will never get the answers. Publishing half the truth is intentionally misleading.

3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration Straus reveals a number of situations where studies or official documents would cite only studies that showed female victims and male perpetrators. He uses the Department of Justice press release as just one example where they only cite the “life- time prevalence” data because it showed primarily male perpetration. They omitted referencing the “past-year” data even though it was more accurate since it showed females perpetrated 40% of the partner assaults. Straus shows journal articles and names organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, the US Department of Justice and others who used this tactic to make it appear that women were the primary victims of domestic violence and men the primary perpetrators.

4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not Straus showed an example of a study by Kernsmith (2005) where the author claimed that women’s violence was more likely to be in self defense but data to support the claim didn’t exist. Apparently he had made the claim even without any supporting evidence. Straus shows that the self defense category was primarily about anger and coercion and not about self-defense at all but this didn’t stop the researcher from claiming the erroneous results which of course could be quoted by later studies as proof that such data does indeed exist.

5. Create “Evidence” By Citation The “woozle” effect is described by Straus as when “frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence mislead us into thinking there is evidence.” He lists the Kernsmaith study and a report from the World Health Organization as examples. Both made claims (without evidence to back it up) that women’s violence was largely in self-defense. The claims were quoted repeatedly and people eventually started to believe that the claims were correct.

6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research that Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance is the Cause of Personal Violence Straus mentions two incidents that illustrate this claim. One was a call for papers on the topic of partner violence in December of 2005 from the National Institute of Justice where it was stated that “proposals to investigate male victimization would not be eligible.” Another was an objection raised by a reviewer of one of his proposals due to its having said that “violence in relationships was a human problem.” He also stated that 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.”

7. Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs Straus provides details of a number of incidents where researchers who found evidence of gender symmetry (that both men and women were victims and perpetrators) in domestic violence were harassed or threatened. He described a number of instances such as bomb scares at personal events, being denied tenure and promotions, or “shouts and stomping” meant to drown out an oral presentation. He relates being called a “wife-beater” as a means to denigrate both himself and his previous research findings.

psychiatristStraus concludes that a “climate of fear has inhibited research and publication on gender symmetry in personal violence.” His words help us to understand the reasons that our public is so convinced that women are the sole victims of domestic violence and men the only perpetrators. It has been years and years of researchers telling only half the story and when we get only half the story and consider it the whole truth we are likely to defend our limited version of the truth and ostracize those who may offer differing explanations.

The matter is further complicated due to the media having acted as a megaphone for the half story that has emerged so the “common knowledge” that has emerged from the media for many years has been half the story and due to its not telling both sides of the story, it is basically misinformation.

What this tells us is that we need to stay on our toes when it comes to social science research. Straus’s paper has helped us immensely in seeing how research can be set up to appear to tell the truth but fail miserably in doing so. While the researchers are not technically lying, the end product is similar since it produces only a partial image of the reality of domestic violence and leaves people without the details to fill in the reality of the situation. It is likely a good idea to have a look at the way each study gets its data, the exact nature of the people being used as subjects, and the conclusion drawn and if they are congruous with the data that was gathered. Next, in Part Two we will look at a study that uses Straus’s first example, ignoring ones own data.

Part Two

  • re-construct

    Ive come to the conclusion that it was almost a blessing in disguise to grow up a poor white boy from the other side of the tracks rather that a privileged white boy with health insurance.
    Someone on Discuss mentioned that poor boys with no health insurance rarely get all f#$ked up on these psych meds at 6 years old, which Im thankful for.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    Great overview of the problem, Tom. No man should venture anywhere near a psychologist for the reasons cited above. At the service delivery level it has become little more than an arm of feminist indoctrination. And we thought everybody being forced to have an Oedipus complex was horrendous – now 100yrs later all males have a Hurt & Domineer Women Complex!

    BTW, a tangential question – did the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory grow out of Ronald Levant’s original Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI)? The two instruments sound remarkably similar at a superficial glance.

    Someone ripped Levant a new one with this analysis of his astonishingly bigoted diagnostic label Normative Male Alexithymia: (That incisive blog rebuttal happens to be number one on a Google search of the phrase, thank god!).

    The moral of the story – stay away from the helpers (except for Tom and Dr. T) 😉

    [PS. I received DSM-5 in mail today and noticed ‘Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder’ re males having disinerest in sex, but could not find a female equivalent. Maybe I missed it… will have a more thorough look tomorrow]

    • Tom Golden

      Hi Peter – Thanks for your kind words. I would bet that Levant knows Mahalik. Levant was a past president of APA and know quite a few folks. I got to know him when I was a part of the Div 51 listserv. That was before the kicked me out. One of the posts I plan to write will be describing that experince. The experience was a doozy.

      I think there are many therapists out there who are male friendly in a similar way as Dr T and myself may be male friendly. The hard part is finding them since many are not.

      • Marsyco

        It’s funny. I just finished my Bachelors in psychology and out of around 300 students on my course I was one of maybe ten males, yet throughout the entire course we were repeatedly told that we needed to be careful of research etc because “it’s skewed to the perspective of the white middle class male as this is the dominant group in psychology today”. Ironic no?

  • crydiego

    And we call this science!

    • STONE

      Psychology is either science or not, depending on which branch of the field, and on which theory is being considered. Either way, psychology is extremely diverse.

      Freud and his followers were clearly not scientists, but unfortunately Freud is probably the most well known name associated with psychology.

      Psychology has an empirical sciences stream as well as a therapeutic traditions stream.

      Abnormal psychology (the DSM) is inherently arbitrary and subjective, it’s basically just the classification and study of weirdos and damaged people, and it is not well connected to the theoretical side of psychology.

      There is a lot of science in psychology, but there is also a lot of pseudoscience, and fraud, and propaganda.

      • Tom Golden

        I agree with you Stone. There is a great deal of diversity under the name “Psychology.” Actually, the name of this series was originally focused on mental health research not on psychology in general. No matter.

        My beef with Psychology in general is not just about the scientific aspect but more about how there seems to be an inability to have compassion, understanding, and respect for men. Period.

        • Isaac Tickley Quill

          Not so sure that Psychology is the issue – maybe it’s the Psychologists Biases.? Just as doctors make crap patients, psychologists are crap at dealing with their own bias! P^))

        • MotorMan

          I had a serious disagreement with my therapist a couple of years ago in the middle of a crisis, and I tried to make the point that psychotherapy is NOT a science. It’s a humanity.

          A good therapist reaches for scientific research to help understand very specific personality disorders, psychopathy, or learning disabilities, of course, but for the average client suffering personal tragedy or cultural oppression — such as misandry — a good therapist is much more like a minister, philosopher, or artist.

          Believe me, there are very important forms of non-bleeding-heart humanitarians, but try to tell a therapist that. SHE will come apart at the seams because you’re taking away HER self-concept as a scientist and — worse yet — ordained authority.

          • Tom Golden

            Motorman you are absolutely correct. My experience in helping men and boys has been mostly connected to loss and trauma. By doing this I never got into the medical model idea and instead learned ways to help men and boys get through their difficulties in the best way possible. This meant I saw their way of being and their behaviors as being normal rather than some pathology that needed some sort of surgery. Many therapists are wedded to the medical model and this creates trouble in things like couples therapy which should be about simply learning to live together. I am planning to write a post sometime that is a guide for men in couples therapy. It is truly a gauntlet for men since most of the language is female based and the female therapists usually don’t have a clue about the way men and boys heal. This leaves them assuming that men and boys are simply damaged women who just need to learn to do it like the ladies. This of course is bullshit.

  • Keano Reeves

    There are studies upon studies that show how castration reduces repeated offenses. Its a bit like Saudi Arabia saying if I cut off a man’s hand, he will not pick up something that isn’t his. Based on this, Western society has gone on a castration drive for paedophiles. Paedophile is defined in such a wide way, that any male can be a paedophile. Google up and see how many men are getting castrated, and their case histories.

    But a similar thing happenedwith unions – UAW was ssooooo powerful. Where is it now? Where are those powerful workwers? FINISHED. They controlled media, votes, legislators, had one sided laws. What happened? They died.

    The same this will happen with feminism. The word about this is spreading. People are becoming aware.Men and women are becoming aware. Individuals are dropping out.

    UAW and Steel Workers died because the laws made them fat and uncompetitive to Chinese and Koreans. Why will it not happen to Western women?

    Almost all such crazy ideas last about 70 years (Soviet Union -1917-1988). If we presume feminism started in 1950-1960, it should end by 2020-2030. This is not science, but rather, speculation.

  • Paul Elam

    When I was contacted by a film company interested in making a documentary on this website, Tom Golden was at the top of my list of people from which to solicit participation.

    There is no better spokesperson about the issue of misandry in the research and practice of psychology than Tom.

    Sterling piece. Many thanks.

    • Tom Golden

      Thanks Paul. You have my admiration and respect for all you are doing here to get our message across. Maybe the tide is starting to turn a little bit.

  • http://NONE Neill Johnston

    “Misandry in Psychology Part One”.


    Good gawd, as IF, MAN does NOT have his OWN MIND at ALL, to SPEK tese things that ARE IMPORTANT to HIM.

    BUT, instead is FORCED to have to turn to science and doctoring them to death to find ALL this out.

    A MAN HAS a MIND of HIS OWN, LIKE IT or NOT, and HE IS, allowed to USE it in the MOST appropriate WAY that IS REASONABLE and POSSIBLE, PERIOD.

  • GQuan

    Psychology, academia, education, law, literature… everything that has value in keeping society strong, functional and supportive of its members is co-opted and used to weaken society, destroying the capacity for trust and making support for that society a foolish exercise in self-harm rather than a means to self-betterment. I don’t know if there’s a conscious effort behind this, or if it’s a case of people picking up discarded ideological weapons and setting them off without knowing what they’re doing, but either way it should be clear that Western society is dead. It consumed itself, as all stable prosperous civilizations seem to do in the end.

  • Keano Reeves

    (HUMOR post – not original, picked from somewhere.Can’t remember where)

    A researcher at Harvard Univiversity found an astonishing fact – that 99% men have penises and 99% women don’t!! It had tremendous implications. A high penis-sex correlation meant that penis is a “deciding factor ‘ for gender.

    There was a public outcry from dept of Women studies. Oprah had a show on this, where a top researcher was called in. She said, “I have no respect for researchers that fabricate conclusions” She got a standing ovation.

    Finally, a female scientist found a flaw in the original research — the sample was not too large. A subsequent research showed that there was no such correlation. It was proven that women too have penises and that too bigger than men. The original researcher lost his job.

    David Atyourfeet, a famous mangina, er… women’s libber angrily announced that he had no penis but his wife had one. That is why he was pegged by his wife regularly. Obama gave a speech saying that he believed that women had penisis too, and Michelle’s penis was bigger than his.

    • ali

      And they have better penises, and they have penises in heels too!!

  • Joe W

    Would the song “She Blinded Me With Science” go well here?

  • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    What a terrific thing it is to have Mr Golden tucked well into our ranks.

    He shoots broad arrows right into the sides of the playpen castle that the toddler feminists are bouncing in. You can see them sitting up and saying, “Hey, what’s that hissing sound?” A shame none will get out before the damned thing collapses.

    When you consider that this man has presented workshops in three continents teaching mental health professionals about how men are unique, is it any wonder that Paul has him in his sights for the upcoming documentary?

    Couple that with his being called in by NFL Films as an expert to discuss the issues of America’s National Football League and Grief, and the publication of three books in homage to a beleaguered and misspent sex he is one of our strongest cannon in my opinion. Sorry sistas, get your own bitch as this bloke is not interested.

    The seven distortion tricks used by our detractors is nothing short of a McDonalds rigid menu. Same everywhere and fast to eat, greasy as an oil-slick and cheap as any sin. I prefer home cooked, but know all too well the importance of knowing the real cost of consuming such “foods”. A quick fix wrapped around a delusion of heartiness and honest produce. Better we learn the seven meals on offer to keep us alert.

    Thank you Tom Golden for what you do, and I’ll back your horses every time you lift the gate and let the bastards run.

    • Tom Golden

      Hey Thanks Dr F! Much appreciated. So glad we are on the same team!

    • DukeLax

      “Golden boys” famous line “Men are good”…lays the foundation for much of his work!!

  • Isaac Tickley Quill

    Oh Thank You Tom – your work makes a wonderful addition to the Wiki pages under See Also!

    Cheers – and can’t wait for the next one!

    • Tom Golden

      You are very welcome. I am looking forward to the next one being published here too!

  • ali

    Apparently anything passes for science now. I have some other suggestions for feminist researchers to tamper with experiments. Or maybe they already use these tactics as well.
    1. When you want to conclude something about a variable, even if that variable shows the opposite behavior to what you want to conclude, here is the cunning solution. When you compare two groups with a differing variable, introduce yet another variable that influences the test group but fail to report it. Example: conduct an experiment wherein some 25-year-old married men run 100m. Find the average time, let’s say 13s. Conduct another experiment with 75-year-old single men that run 100m. Find the average time, let’s say 40s.
    Report: We had two groups of married and single men running.
    Conclude: Married men are more powerful and it seems they get their power from women.
    2. Misinterpret the data. Example: this time we start with the report just for fun.
    Report: We had 100 experiments in which groups of girls with the age average of ten were compared to a group of boys with the same age average in their capability of understanding math. In all experiments the highest score pertained to a girl.
    Conclude: Geniuses of math are usually female.
    Now what is wrong with this one?
    Same age average? What if girls were 17, 10, 1 with average 10 and the boys were 10, 10 and 10? Same averages but different deviations. 17-year-olds are always the highest scorers and therefor female.
    This one was easy, next one is harder to detect.
    3. I have to say this one is well engineered to produce any results you wish to conclude and I doubt it will be detected easily. Again we start with the report.
    Report: Experiments were conducted between a large group of girls and a large group of boys, with the same number of participants (for example 12), same age average (10), same deviation (0.4269), same diversity in color and ethnicity, same everything. On average girls did better.
    Conclude: Girls are better.
    But here is the cunning part that is impossible to trace if it was in an article:
    Female ages: [11,9,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,9.95,10.05]. Average: 10. Deviation: 0.4269
    Male ages: [10.4,10.4, 10.4,10.4,10.45,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.55,10.4,9.6] Average: 10. Deviation: 0.4269
    Even the deviation is low so it is desirable.
    The scandalous part however is that all of these are fifth graders except one, the 11-year-old girl which is a 6th grader. So if you also engineer your tests to ask questions studied in 6th grade, everybody does poorly except one. And yeah, on average female students will do better.

    Based on the kind of math I’ve seen these gender study researchers carry out, They usually just go for misinterpretation of statistics. They don’t have enough brains for math. So I’m not sure if we need to teach them more ways to be crafty.

  • crydiego

    In reply to Stone
    Yes, psychology is very broad and complex science, I agree. An empirical social science that has performed more research over the last fifty years than any library could hold. And yet, I question if it has come up with a definitive, unarguable answer to anything. My problem with psychology is not its limits on proof, or those who note those limits in their research. My problem is with its ability to superficially show proof for any hair brain theory one cares to come up and call it psychology. When you are in control of the data, -you are in control of the data! In the physical sciences the people who do this are ostracized. In psychology they are know as experts in their particular field of study.
    As an example let’s take the question; Are men and women psychologically the same or different? What happens when we send that one through the innards of this empirical science? It’s not always science that pops out the other end.
    But don’t get me wrong, this is a valuable field of research; -but tainted. It has been tainted by unethical people and people who are not grounded in a respect for science.

  • Marissa

    This is a great article! I’ve never seen the Straus study and always wondered where the woozle term came from. Thanks for sharing!

    • Tom Golden

      Thanks Marissa. Glad you found it helpful. the Straus article is a landmark in my book.

  • Feminist_Nullificationist

    This is a well documented, scholarly article, unlike the tripe foisted in feminist circles.

    Junk-Science is feminism’s foundation, the altar upon which it worships, and the device by which it defrauds billions from taxpayers to wage its war on males.

    In a court of law, witnesses take an oath to tell “the whole truth” yet Junk-Science routinely perjurers the “expert testimony” of domestic violence advocates as well as the cognitive processes of all VAWA trained court officials.

    Taxpayers’ money has been used to fund feminist fraud in writing and enforcing law.
    Domestic Abuse Law Is Junk-Science

    Taxpayers’ money has been used to fund feminist fraud in judges’ training.
    Junk-Science Makes Bad Judges’ Training

    In our educational institutions, Junk-Science permeates and discredits all Social “Sciences,” making much of Social “Science” curriculum little more than academic fraud.

    Taxpayers money has been used to fund feminist fraud in education.
    Defund Women’s Studies Junk-Science

    • Tom Golden

      Thanks F_N! I hope you like the next ones.

  • Fredrik

    They collected data on both male and female victims but only the female victims were discussed in the publications. Scientific method is dependent upon creating a hypothesis and testing it. If you get data from your test that is contrary to your original hypothesis this is just as important as getting data that affirms the hypothesis and can be used to adjust your original hypothesis. To ignore ones own data that contradicts the hypothesis is the epitome of disregard to the foundations of scientific inquiry. It leaves the realms of research and enters the realms of propaganda and shaping the outcome to mislead.

    The significance of that cannot be overstated. The difference between seeking evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, and seeking evidence that confirms it, is nothing less than the difference between science and superstition. It is quite literally the foundation of the scientific method; there’s even a specialized notation associated with it.

    You take your hypothesis, which is H. You then take the negation of it, which is H₀ (read “H naught”). And then you construct an experiment looking for evidence of H₀ — evidence that you’re wrong. That is how science works, because we’re an exceedingly irrational species; if you look for evidence that you’re right, you will always find it… whether it exists or not.

    • Tom Golden

      Agree with you 100%. It is mind boggling that science has been drugged and beaten into a pulp that shows little connection to critical thinking. Why can’t our academes see this and condemn it? I think we both know the answer to that one.

      • Fredrik

        It all comes down to money. I do not have a citation immediately at hand, but I’ve heard complaints that science in general is becoming corrupted, because the people who control the purse strings do not have scientific minds. It’s hard for normal people to perceive the value of negative results; and if you’re mostly right, then a lot of negative results will happen when you look for evidence that you’re wrong.

        The problem is that it’s irrational to have confidence in a belief that isn’t being tested.

        So, I think that a lot of the best science going forward will be unconventional. One source will be people who happen to hold heterodox beliefs, so that their confirmation-seeking puts the consensus to the test; but then they could fool themselves. It would be better for people with good scientific minds to create low-budget studies.

      • DukeLax

        …..”Drugged and beaten to a pulp” …I find Academics that incorporate colloquial terms…to be worth their salt.

        • DukeLax

          Kinda similar to the saying thats going around facebook….” A guy that swears alot…is usually more truthful than others.

  • Theseus

    Whoa. Fantastic article Tom.

    I respectfully disagree though that some of these researchers weren’t “technically lying”. Intentionally withholding or manipulating the truth to bring about a deceptive result is a flat out lie. Like our parents always told us “omission of the truth IS a lie”.

    • Tom Golden

      Thanks Theseus. I wouldn’t even argue with you over this. No matter which way you slice it they are intentionally fabricating and that should be condemned every step of the way.

  • gwallan

    A couple of Australian circumstances.

    During the early nineties the Keating federal Labor government commissioned the first “Personal Safety Survey” through the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Prior to the study’s commencement elements within that government forced changes upon the Bureau. Males were eliminated from the survey group. Questions which might identify the sex of an abuser were modified or eliminated. A number of senior Bureau staff resigned in disgust at the political interference and the discrimination it represented.

    Chisholm Institute in Victoria runs a large welfare studies program. The director of this program is Stephen Fisher. Fisher has advocated openly that any male claiming to be a victim of abuse should not only be disbelieved but considered a likely perpetrator. Several times I’ve tried to find out if their course content reinforces this particular prejudice. Whilst I’ve had a good hearing from the individuals I originally made contact with the institute itself has never responded. I think it’s time I tried again. We’ve had a change of state government since my last contact with Chisholm and the current health minister is a former acquaintance.

    I’ve been actively connected with the Australian Labor Party since the late sixties. However I’m currently engaged in a process of communicating to male victims and victims of female perpetrators that under no circumstances should they vote Labor.

  • Healthyself

    Hey, I’ve not commented before, but I’ve been exposed to some misandry (with a side order of political bias) in my psych classes, and I can tell you where I see most of the issues coming from.

    What you’re going to want to do is look at ‘qualitative’ psychology (which deals with narratives), as opposed to quantitative psychology (which deals with statistics). Not that there won’t be problems in quantitative, but qualitative psychology is where the feminists really dwell, we’re talking proper ‘feminist theory’ stuff…

    Qualitative research, heavily influenced by trends in other social sciences like sociology, is pretty much either postmodernist gobbledygook, grounded theory hand waving, or literally ‘feminist research’. Not only that, but in qualitative research bias is actively encouraged, there is no attempt to purge oneself or the research of bias and achieve objectivity, that is seen as a huge evil (not the mention the western perspective).

    • Tom Golden

      Actually the second part of this series is about a study that was both qualitative and quantitative. Interestingly both sections came up with different results. Guess which one they gave more weight to? LOL

      • Isaac Tickley Quill

        You get the same issues when you have DV analysed from a criminological position or a sociological position – same with sexual violence/abuse.

        If you ask a feminist sociologist about criminology they tell you criminology is quackery. It’s nigh on impossible to find a feminist criminologist, and when you ask criminologist about Sociologist they tend to identify them as Criminals in academic drag.

        • DukeLax

          Wow.. I would pay to see that, a modern American gender-feminist…using the term “Quackery”….lol

        • DukeLax

          “Criminals in academic drag”…Im tickled by youre colorful rhetoric Mr Tickley quill.

      • OneWingedAngel

        Guess which part has been taken down by my IP too…fishy

    • DukeLax


  • fidelbogen

    This is an article after my own heart. It lays open feminism’s jugular like a shiv.

    (For the record, the second sentence, above, was a metaphor!)

    • Tom Golden

      Thanks Fidelbogen. My guess is you will like the other ones if you like this one.

  • markis1

    Within a few weeks after marring my XW her verbal abuse got pretty extreme.she would find something to scream at me for about every day.occasionally she would hit me in a fit of anger and a couple of times she pulled kitchen knives on me.i didnt know it but i was in the beginning stages of a depression that lasted for 6 yrs ,a year longer than our marriage lasted

    we finally separated but continued to see each other.she got pregnant and we got back together and the abuse GOT WORSE.Hitting,biting ,scratching,screaming,kicking,isolation from friends and family,my income being confiscated….i left her over and over again

    i stared seeing mental health counselors thru the county where i live and found them almost totally worthless.

    Her and i were at my mothers house one evening and we had a dispute and she wound up being arrested for DV,

    she got out of jail, got probation and was ordered to to go to counseling.she went to the same place for DV counseling as i was going to for treatment for depression.

    a couple of the people who i was in treatment with told privately me to get a divorce.

    BUT NOT ONE COUNSELOR OR THERAPIST told me “look you are in an abusive situation,that is bad for your mental health.

    her ” treatment”revolved around the “DULUTH MODEL” that says that men are abusers and women are the abused. which she was all too happy to show me .and how the other women her counseling group were being told that it wasent really their of them was even congratulated for getting up the nerve to leave the partner whom she had been abusing.

    Mean while i was being told thing in counseling things like “im depressed because i get a benefit’ from it and “you have been shitted on now deal with it” and ‘your depressed because you dont do enough”(im a laborer then as now i do hard labor like dig ditches)

    Too many people have the notation that men are only good and useful when there doing something good and useful.and when their in pain or somehow not producing something especially for women their useless and worthless.


    • Tom Golden

      Indeed. It is a stacked deck markis1. Men are applauded for their independence but are vilified if they show dependence or neediness. Sadly, going in for depression is usually showing dependence. It’s a gauntlet and a no win for men. If they suck it up then they are accepted, if they go for help they are not. It’s a dangerous spot for men.

      • feeriker

        Thank you, Tom, for your invaluable insight as one “inside the system.”

        I can only imagine what it must be like for men who are undergoing “treatment” as part of a court order. My own past brief experiences with voluntary counseling were harrowing and off-putting enough; it pains me to think about the Stalinist hell that men who are coerced into such “treatment” must be experiencing.

    • Emilio Lizardo

      “… are only good and useful when there doing something good and useful.”

      True. But we used to get some value in return. We will never be as good at being victims as women, it’s one of their super powers, and we shouldn’t try. What’s necessary is a return to rewarding men for their sacrifices.

      Keep in mind that Feminists have also destroyed the value of being ‘mom’ too, except in those circumstances where it can be used against men.

      To the Feminist (gender Marxist), men must remain the gender oppressor to be destroyed.

  • GraniteSoldier

    Not surprised. I was lured into “Couples Counselling” with access to my child as reward. When I brought up the numerous acts of physical violence my ex perpetrated against me the female Counselor just shrugged. When I listed all the abusive things done to me I was told that was a form of abuse. The female Counselor agreed. When we left the counseling session my ex told me that “I deserved being assaulted and that the counselor clearly agreed.” The feminist hegemony has corrupted everything. I fired the counselor and filed a complaint with my insurance company. Nothing happened of course.

  • Redfield

    Completed my psychology degree 12 months ago, was the statistical outlier in the group (oldest male to have completed the degree). Was enlightening experience, generally positive, the university was always respectful to me when I had family issues (being the primary caregiver of my children), but it was still saturated with feminist ideologues!

    The degree was research based resulting in many statistical subjects. From my still limited knowledge of statistical modelling, one should tread carefully when hearing on TV or radio the words “new research shows women …. Blah, blah, blah)” simply because these models do not prove causation in what the researcher attempts to measure, only associations or correlations between variables!

    Even without the biases (in this discussion, gender) every researcher brings to their research; there is always error in the results simply because the sampling methods are never 100% certain they are measuring the population they have set out to measure!
    In fact the “hard sciences” do not use or to my knowledge even recognise statistical modelling the social sciences rely so heavily on. That is not to say it should be automatically discounted, but one should know it has limitations …

    Mr Golden thank you for this article, they are long overdue, can’t wait for the follow up articles :) Since being severed from the Uni data base do you know of any free online databases that I can access for psy research articles???

    • DukeLax

      Many of todays media “Inflama-prop”…is not based on scientific statistics at all, much of it is now based on what the true scientific community call “SLOP” surveys.
      “SLOP” surveys stand for Self se Lected Opinion Polls…or SLOP.

    • TrishRan

      Another way to skew reporting on science to the wider community is to bury any study that has results that don’t align with the preconceptions of the study-designer -that data is unavailable for further examination.

      • RevSpinnaker

        Kind of like the international studies on child abuse which rank America as the worst industrialized nation in the world.

  • julie

    I don’t see the point of this article…. mostly because it’s 2014 and feminists are not anti male victims of domestic violent….. they are anti anti-feminists. lol. The world is small…. domestic violence is an international issue and psychologists tackle it as such. The problems so far have been around arguments at a community level between men’s refuges and women’s refuges, arguments between lawyers, .. arguments at a political level…..(there’s plenty of ideological arguments in mental health, btw). The older generation have this idea that men and women are meant to argue everything out but that’s not what cradle to grave, wrap around services are about. Everyone is meant to work together and you can’t have one group (men’s refuges) fight another group (women’s refuges). As it stands, we have men’s refuges all over the place in most countries because someone decided to do the work and fill out funding applications, etc. If a group made it work in such a way that men’s refuges work WITH the community, then it will be duplicated around the world just like Erin Pizzy’s small refuge work did. It was picked up and duplicated at a bigger level.

    The other point I wonder is, “how many psychologists are on this site alone or connected to it?” Enough, I bet, to do study… perhaps big international study. Can you imagine the media attention if this site and others connected to it all got behind a study for violence against men?

    Oh, one other point. On the bar at the top of the page, it has a number of options including ‘women’. The only option it’s missing is men.

    IMO, if the groups leading the way don’t acknowledge and value men, then why would others? But I am sure it’s sorted. Perhaps men are under ‘common’ like everything here is about men and women are the minority group or such.

    • Isaac T. Quill

      Saw This “…it’s 2014 and feminists are not anti male victims of domestic violent….. they are anti anti-feminists. lol. ” and was surprised that someone failed to grasp the psychological issues. Evidently someone does not grasp how bias works across all areas of society and it’s longevity once embedded.

      Bias is reversed by re-education and not by issuing a presumptive victory because you have grasped that “anti anti-feminists” are a reality – and tail end of decades/generations of misinformation and bias that lives on.

      • RevSpinnaker

        Well then… I guess that would make me an anti anti anti-feminist.
        At least we know where we all stand.

    • Frodo

      DV shelters for men??????????? Where??????????

    • DukeLax

      Todays American gender-feminists….are going to keep pushing more and more “manufactured statistics Alliances” into US law enforcement, until we reach the point where hetero-relationships are such a legal liability for guys…that guys have to walk away…just to not be harassed by law enforcement.

  • ronthebuilder

    I’ve experienced a great deal of this first-hand: supervised visitation where I give a two-year-old who barely knows me his Christmas presents in a hotel lobby, while an advocate takes notes and pictures and tut-tuts about the idea of my son & I being more than 20′ from the women; parenting classes where how not to anger a mother is the main curriculum; mediation where my need to understand why my son’s kidnapping was justifiable is how we are to make progress; a DA who wanted me to plead out on a lesser charge when I was the one assaulted; an opposing attorney who was offended when I told her, no, you can’t just barge in on a meeting with my counsel; a police officer who brought his DV-counselor girlfriend to instruct him on how to do his job on a DV call…

    This not even to mention how almost daily I am diagnosed online by angry, bitter women and told that dealing with my anger and bitterness is the only help for me; this is the stock response to anyone going into DV circles and suggesting to them that they are being used by a radical ideology to do the heavy lifting of a gender insurrection going on all around us…

    All this reflexive bigotry fills me with continuing determination to stand proud against this ideological assassination of manhood, and not to apologize or disclaim on my credentials as one who does not now and has never hated women.

    • TrishRan

      I’m disgusted you and your child are being treated this way.

  • Emilio Lizardo

    I find ”disdain for homosexuality”, and all other sexual defects, rather reasonable.

    • Frodo

      We at AVFM do not

    • Frodo

      Strike 1: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about bigotry and homophobia. [Ref: 1613]

      • Emilio Lizardo

        Then this is something that needs be discussed, particularly if the topic is raised in the article. At least if gender is something meaningful.

  • Emilio Lizardo

    One author suggests that fraudulent research should be a crime, given the consequences of such fraud, seems like a good idea.

  • Emilio Lizardo

    Maybe it’s time these ‘researchers’ were prosecuted for their frauds. The cost of this sort of advocacy is high, in terms of capital and lives.

    It seems that gender Marxism and Creationism have much in common.

  • DukeLax

    MR Golden boy…says, “Men Are good”!!! And i believe him!!

  • TrishRan

    I wonder why, if women are only victims & men only perpetrators, why there are so many women in recent years being sent to prison for violent crimes?

  • OneWingedAngel

    I, a mere 22 year old man are waging a war against the bullshit hamstering against men on Psychology Today that someone twice my age should be dealing with. You’re doing God’s work here gentlemen.

    I see Part 2 has been taken down, I can’t access it via Safari server…Christ was it the feminists who did this? I mean technically most of AVFM and the Manosphere is blacklisted on some report as hate speech sites, which is why I don’t like frequenting all off it especially the PUA subset (hello Heartiste/RoK) But it’s not like what you’re saying here is even explicitly misogynist, just notices that feminists cheery pick data to suit their agenda. If saying THAT can get a page taken down then we are dealing with some dictatorial censorship.

  • RevSpinnaker

    Great article Tom. Thanks for the link to Straus. You say, “[p]ublishing half the truth is intentionally misleading.” I’ve thought a lot about this in terms of sexual abuse of boys.
    I’ve come to the conclusion that telling half the truth is still telling a whole lie.
    Evil prevails when good men do nothing. Time for women to man-up.