I had the pleasure of attending the University of New Hampshire for graduate school back in the 90's where Murray Strauss is based. Even back then the Femi Nazis despised him and were doing everything they could to isolate and discredit him. Loss of a key federal lawsuit against the university for gender discrimination (Silva versus University of New Hampshire) probably helped spare his career. In any event, the behavior's described here were all going on at UNH and I have seen them applied at various times in my own life by feminist activists often as consultants to university's sexual harassment programs and for professional societies developing codes of conduct.
These codes are actually meant to create an alternative feminist punishment system to deny men rights they would have in the legal system by avoiding due process and then using a "conviction" in 1 kangaroo court to justify cancellation and bullying of the accused in any other venue over which the Femi Nazi's have control. This is a wide spread coordinated network of gynocentric misandryst activity.
Some of the 7 tactics discussed here have been used against my own science. A peer reviewed poster presented at a scientific meeting was used retracted for violating the societies code of conduct because it offended several women by suggesting that due process rights matter and that codes of conduct like the society had developed were unconstitutional. 4 societies directly participated in the cancellation (3 in the US, 1 in Europe) despite their being forced to admit that everything in the poster was completely accurate and based on public information.
The two primary societies in this group had used a consultant to develop their codes of conduct who provided 3 scenarios showing grounds for kicking the person out of the society. All 3 cases involved a man as perpetrator and women as the victim. She also produced the sexual harassment training program for one of the 2 societies, that I worked for and was fired from, which contained the same 3 scenarios including 4 others. All but one of these were male oppressed and female victims. The last scenario still had a white male oppressor but the victims were international students who were oppressed because the while male government scientist dared to suggest at an after conference gathering that America should adopt a preference for hiring Americans for positions. This was considered to create a hostile environment for foreign attendees of the meeting despite the fact that such policies favoring their citizens are the norm for many other countries including those the students came from! In the scenario the white male American scientist was banned from attending meetings. All these scenarios were claimed to be based on real cases. The training was so over the top that the employees of GSA (in Boulder, CO) complained that it was biased to the point that they had to stop using it. When you offend even the progressives of Boulder that should be a clue that you are unhinged from reality.
What is ironic about this training used across many scientific societies is that there is data showing that sexual harassment by WOMEN is not exactly rare. The feminists complaint about how hostile the geosciences are because 66% of harassment complaints are made by women. In a field that was 70% male at the time, however, this suggests that perpetration of harassment is statistically equal across the sexes with if anything a higher rate of perpetration of harassment by WOMEN than men per capita. A fair training should have had at least 1 example of the 3 where the woman was the perpetrator against a man with the employee training having 3-4 of the 7 being such!
At one of the trainings imposed on members of the society at its annual meeting someone asked the facilitators about harassment of men and false accusations. The women laughed saying the numbers for such were almost non-existant despite the 66% number being reported at the conference. Apparently the 34% of complaints by men simply don't count. This makes one wonder what the true complaint rate would be if men were encouraged to report in the same way that women are and suggests that women likely commit far more harassment per capita than men because it is incentivized and protected by the very mechanisms designed to prevent harassment.
In my defense of the facts in my poster I pointed out that science is supposed to rely on the actual evidence, not the mythology that passes as academic literature in women's studies. They didn't care for that fact either....
This is the kind of information that needs to be emailed to every police officer, district attorney, and judge, once a month....until they get it in their heads. Reality Matters.
Feminism has always been lies, double standards, misandry, hate and anti male sexism. Their lies reminds me of the dishonest ruses they have to cause boys to fail their schooling. Feminism is evil.
I have always been interested in feminist research. Not least because they are the only ones to get funding for large scale sociological projects. In doing so a common feature is to leave out the male half. This is very evident in research funded under VAWG Strategy (in the UK lots of research is funded through publicly funded Research Councils following Gov. Strategy). The "Executive Summary" and often the "Conclusion" simply gives the funder what they want. However actually reading the full report frequently finds "surprising" or "challenging" results in the data and often commented on by the researchers. These will be data about males or their experience that are counter to the hypothesis. Hence it is often very instructive to read the full report. As a non academic myself what used to surprise me, but no longer does, that the results didn't lead them to question the hypothesis. The usual formula is "these results/data are challenging/surprising/unexpected so more research is needed to understand them" You will not be surprised to know that research is never done. Partly because the public money guided by the VAWG Strategy won't commission such things and partly that follow up research usually focusses on females only in small "qualitative" research.
It is always worth having a close look at any quantitative research data that has included for males as frequently it tells a different story than the Conclusions or Summary. And to be frank it is unlikely that large studies including males will be done without it being within the femnist framework.
Yes, that has also been my experience. Once you get past the exec summary you start seeing things that show how biased they are. I will be posting three essays I did in evaluating specific feminist research that shows how crooked they are. One for the next three saturdays. In each one the exec summary was basically propaganda as you said above. Most simply don't look beyond that point.
Domestic violence disinformation is an example of relational aggression on a global scale. Relational aggression is the preferred form of aggression among females but it is not considered in most studies of interpersonal violence.
Indeed, and when they do study it among children they find that the girl's relational aggression is similar in frequency and intensity to the boy's physical aggression. Nut you don't hear about that, do you?
I think some of us have always had an inkling that what was reported by the media and feminist literature about DM was suspect. Just basic life experience and the personal knowledge of universal male intentions created internal conflict. Something doesn't jive!
Under an equal system, men’s and women’s interests would be viewed as intertwined and ultimately inseparable. This would lead to a framework of effectively providing solutions for women and to men. This, needless to say, is not what feminism offers. And, as detailed above, now we see how.
Gender studies departments and journals that allow this deceptive scholarship to go unchallenged really need to lose all public funding that they've enjoyed for decades now. Peer review is a joke when it's an echo chamber.
One more observation: I suspect that these scholarly deceptions are also used to prop up "critical race theory" and race-focused 'scholarship' and a great deal of what passes for applied sociology. AI now relies on these studies and reports their conclusion as fact -- on a number of different issues, not just race and gender. I recently encountered this while researching mass immigration. AI will share conclusions based on the preponderance of scholarship without trying to verify its veracity. Such 'scholarship' shapes public policy, so it's not a victimless crime to misrepresent the data. It can have serious consequences.
Men may be good, Tom Golden, and the researchers you mention may be shitty, but there is no denying men have superior physical strength compared to women, in particular upper body strength, and that testosterone, of which men obviously have much more, makes people aggressive. Women bear the brunt of domestic violence and there's no denying that.
I agree that men typically have greater physical strength, yet I've witnessed on several occasions women becoming indignant and even angry at someone saying that very thing. Oy!
Yes well if you believe everything you see on television 🙄 where dainty women regularly take down men twice their size…
People are so committed to an ideal world, an on-screen world, that they can't use their own five senses to discover reality 🤷🏼♀️.
What do those women know of men’s bodies?????? Haven't they ever wrestled with a man???? Are these the same women who believe a man in a dress is a woman???
I had the pleasure of attending the University of New Hampshire for graduate school back in the 90's where Murray Strauss is based. Even back then the Femi Nazis despised him and were doing everything they could to isolate and discredit him. Loss of a key federal lawsuit against the university for gender discrimination (Silva versus University of New Hampshire) probably helped spare his career. In any event, the behavior's described here were all going on at UNH and I have seen them applied at various times in my own life by feminist activists often as consultants to university's sexual harassment programs and for professional societies developing codes of conduct.
These codes are actually meant to create an alternative feminist punishment system to deny men rights they would have in the legal system by avoiding due process and then using a "conviction" in 1 kangaroo court to justify cancellation and bullying of the accused in any other venue over which the Femi Nazi's have control. This is a wide spread coordinated network of gynocentric misandryst activity.
Some of the 7 tactics discussed here have been used against my own science. A peer reviewed poster presented at a scientific meeting was used retracted for violating the societies code of conduct because it offended several women by suggesting that due process rights matter and that codes of conduct like the society had developed were unconstitutional. 4 societies directly participated in the cancellation (3 in the US, 1 in Europe) despite their being forced to admit that everything in the poster was completely accurate and based on public information.
The two primary societies in this group had used a consultant to develop their codes of conduct who provided 3 scenarios showing grounds for kicking the person out of the society. All 3 cases involved a man as perpetrator and women as the victim. She also produced the sexual harassment training program for one of the 2 societies, that I worked for and was fired from, which contained the same 3 scenarios including 4 others. All but one of these were male oppressed and female victims. The last scenario still had a white male oppressor but the victims were international students who were oppressed because the while male government scientist dared to suggest at an after conference gathering that America should adopt a preference for hiring Americans for positions. This was considered to create a hostile environment for foreign attendees of the meeting despite the fact that such policies favoring their citizens are the norm for many other countries including those the students came from! In the scenario the white male American scientist was banned from attending meetings. All these scenarios were claimed to be based on real cases. The training was so over the top that the employees of GSA (in Boulder, CO) complained that it was biased to the point that they had to stop using it. When you offend even the progressives of Boulder that should be a clue that you are unhinged from reality.
What is ironic about this training used across many scientific societies is that there is data showing that sexual harassment by WOMEN is not exactly rare. The feminists complaint about how hostile the geosciences are because 66% of harassment complaints are made by women. In a field that was 70% male at the time, however, this suggests that perpetration of harassment is statistically equal across the sexes with if anything a higher rate of perpetration of harassment by WOMEN than men per capita. A fair training should have had at least 1 example of the 3 where the woman was the perpetrator against a man with the employee training having 3-4 of the 7 being such!
At one of the trainings imposed on members of the society at its annual meeting someone asked the facilitators about harassment of men and false accusations. The women laughed saying the numbers for such were almost non-existant despite the 66% number being reported at the conference. Apparently the 34% of complaints by men simply don't count. This makes one wonder what the true complaint rate would be if men were encouraged to report in the same way that women are and suggests that women likely commit far more harassment per capita than men because it is incentivized and protected by the very mechanisms designed to prevent harassment.
In my defense of the facts in my poster I pointed out that science is supposed to rely on the actual evidence, not the mythology that passes as academic literature in women's studies. They didn't care for that fact either....
These insights remain enlightening to this day. Thanks for flagging and sharing it.
Indeed. What Straus put together needs to be broadcast to all. We have been gaslit too long.
This is the kind of information that needs to be emailed to every police officer, district attorney, and judge, once a month....until they get it in their heads. Reality Matters.
Totally agree Father X. Good to see you.
Feminism has always been lies, double standards, misandry, hate and anti male sexism. Their lies reminds me of the dishonest ruses they have to cause boys to fail their schooling. Feminism is evil.
Well you can replace feminism with women and you actually have the truth.
We are still unable to accept the reality of women’s behavior.
Thanks Tom for this.
Indeed. Thanks for your support John.
Excellent article, Tom. Keep speaking the truth about feminists' lies.
Was there any response whatsoever to these findings? If so, what were they?
If they were ignored, they're unrefuted
Not much of a response. I think most wanted to see it dissappear. Gynocentrism is a powerful force.
I have always been interested in feminist research. Not least because they are the only ones to get funding for large scale sociological projects. In doing so a common feature is to leave out the male half. This is very evident in research funded under VAWG Strategy (in the UK lots of research is funded through publicly funded Research Councils following Gov. Strategy). The "Executive Summary" and often the "Conclusion" simply gives the funder what they want. However actually reading the full report frequently finds "surprising" or "challenging" results in the data and often commented on by the researchers. These will be data about males or their experience that are counter to the hypothesis. Hence it is often very instructive to read the full report. As a non academic myself what used to surprise me, but no longer does, that the results didn't lead them to question the hypothesis. The usual formula is "these results/data are challenging/surprising/unexpected so more research is needed to understand them" You will not be surprised to know that research is never done. Partly because the public money guided by the VAWG Strategy won't commission such things and partly that follow up research usually focusses on females only in small "qualitative" research.
It is always worth having a close look at any quantitative research data that has included for males as frequently it tells a different story than the Conclusions or Summary. And to be frank it is unlikely that large studies including males will be done without it being within the femnist framework.
Yes, that has also been my experience. Once you get past the exec summary you start seeing things that show how biased they are. I will be posting three essays I did in evaluating specific feminist research that shows how crooked they are. One for the next three saturdays. In each one the exec summary was basically propaganda as you said above. Most simply don't look beyond that point.
Domestic violence disinformation is an example of relational aggression on a global scale. Relational aggression is the preferred form of aggression among females but it is not considered in most studies of interpersonal violence.
Indeed, and when they do study it among children they find that the girl's relational aggression is similar in frequency and intensity to the boy's physical aggression. Nut you don't hear about that, do you?
Indeed! There is a good online video by Prof Nicky Crick on relational aggression differences. Will try to find it and post.
I think some of us have always had an inkling that what was reported by the media and feminist literature about DM was suspect. Just basic life experience and the personal knowledge of universal male intentions created internal conflict. Something doesn't jive!
We should have known
"Manufacturing Research" Eeva Sodhi Nojustice,info
https://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm
My Cognitive dissonance began when I began questioning and looking for insight and understanding.
Something always felt "wrong" with the message that feminism was portraying through the media.
https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004_07/child_support/submissions/sub21a_pdf.ashx
The above is well worth reading.
Under an equal system, men’s and women’s interests would be viewed as intertwined and ultimately inseparable. This would lead to a framework of effectively providing solutions for women and to men. This, needless to say, is not what feminism offers. And, as detailed above, now we see how.
Feminism is not about equality
It is an ideology based on nothing but hatred of men and boys and is really all about power and SPECIAL STATUS FOR WOMEN IN ALL THINGS
Feminism is the largest hate movement the world has ever seen
They hate 1/2 of world’s entire population
Gender studies departments and journals that allow this deceptive scholarship to go unchallenged really need to lose all public funding that they've enjoyed for decades now. Peer review is a joke when it's an echo chamber.
One more observation: I suspect that these scholarly deceptions are also used to prop up "critical race theory" and race-focused 'scholarship' and a great deal of what passes for applied sociology. AI now relies on these studies and reports their conclusion as fact -- on a number of different issues, not just race and gender. I recently encountered this while researching mass immigration. AI will share conclusions based on the preponderance of scholarship without trying to verify its veracity. Such 'scholarship' shapes public policy, so it's not a victimless crime to misrepresent the data. It can have serious consequences.
Men may be good, Tom Golden, and the researchers you mention may be shitty, but there is no denying men have superior physical strength compared to women, in particular upper body strength, and that testosterone, of which men obviously have much more, makes people aggressive. Women bear the brunt of domestic violence and there's no denying that.
I agree that men typically have greater physical strength, yet I've witnessed on several occasions women becoming indignant and even angry at someone saying that very thing. Oy!
Yes well if you believe everything you see on television 🙄 where dainty women regularly take down men twice their size…
People are so committed to an ideal world, an on-screen world, that they can't use their own five senses to discover reality 🤷🏼♀️.
What do those women know of men’s bodies?????? Haven't they ever wrestled with a man???? Are these the same women who believe a man in a dress is a woman???
You now have a new follower. 🙂👍🏼
Welcome David!