39 Comments
User's avatar
Sadredin Moosavi's avatar

Perhaps its time members of the Manosphere showing off the true character of feminist women and girls. The title for the series: Hell Hath No Fury Like a Woman (Scorned or Otherwise). How do you think such a series would be received? (I know...but I had to ask.)

Expand full comment
Tom Golden's avatar

LOL! It would be a big hit! The sub title would be:

"And He Deserved It!"

Expand full comment
Sadredin Moosavi's avatar

Of course it would. We can reply the same about the woman authored Handmaid's Tale!

Expand full comment
Douglas's avatar

One point of correction in how UK legal system works. An expert witness, although usually hired by one side or the other MUST be independent. It didn't really matter if the hopeless psychologist was hired by the defence or the prosecution, it would be entirely correct that she would be independent. In the UK courts, an expert witness's evidence can be completely disregarded if it can be shown that they held any bias. This includes anyone making a pre-judgement or pre-sentencing report.

Expand full comment
Tom Golden's avatar

Thanks for that clarification Douglas. I am woefully ignorant of how things are done in the UK. I am guessing that the decision of who to hire as an expert would be a critical decision for either side.

Expand full comment
Douglas's avatar

Exactly: the witness is making witness to the court, not to those who hired them. One does not hire an expert because of known biases—quite the opposite. What one does is look for an expert with the right slant of expertise to come up with professional, unbiased opinions that are hopefully good for your side. (Even then, it doesn't always work out the way people want.) I do know that on occasion the prosecution and defence might agree on a single expert to call in, to prevent having two professionals who disagree and therefore don't help move a case forward.

Expand full comment
Tom Parker's avatar

Adolescence is another refusal to acknowledge that feminism has disempowered fathers for 50 years and that this is the reason for toxic masculinity, not men themselves. It continues to deny the hypocrisy of what feminism calls equality.

Equality means equal conditions for parents, which we don’t have, and we continue to reject in law. Equal financial responsibility for children, and equal right to raise them. Families are now created on a gender power imbalance and the systematic denigration of fathers.

Facebook group:

Support Equal Parenting Legislation - UK

Expand full comment
Tom Golden's avatar

"Adolescence is another refusal to acknowledge that feminism has disempowered fathers for 50 years"

Well said.

Expand full comment
تولا's avatar

LOLLLL insane 'well said'

Expand full comment
oivind's avatar

I agree with everything you wrote except from this: "... the reason for toxic masculinity...".

toxic masculinity is not a real concept remember. It's a feminist hate-term.

As anti-feminists we know better than to use that term.

Expand full comment
Tom Parker's avatar

Denying that men can be toxic is part of the problem. I’m fine with using the term in its correct characterisation.

Expand full comment
Dave's avatar

Tom, you should check a bit more into Costello's "research". Apparently, it is based on paying people who self-identified as "incels" on some website. The methods are not valid and the results are really garbage...

Expand full comment
Tom Golden's avatar

I looked at the research and it looks like a typical study that pays people to answer a questionnaire. If you don't choose people for your study that identify as incels how you gonna study them? Here's what they said about recruitment:

"Incels were recruited via a mixture of social media, podcast promotion and incel forums. Potential participants were sent to a single-page website containing the research mission statement (see above), biographies of researchers and examples of existing and related publications, blogs and interviews."

Doesn't seem out of line to me. BTW N was >500

They used a number of instruments to make assessments. Looks interesting to me and I didn't see much that looked flawed. What is your concern?

Expand full comment
Dave's avatar

There are numerous problems, more than I have time to enumerate or can recall. I believe I heard about this study many months ago (later last year). At the time, I mostly observed a discussion of the study, asking a few questions.

Qualitative studies like this one, in general, are really lacking, and as I mentioned earlier are really only good for helping to formulate a rigorous hypothesis.

The entire construction of the study was dubious (flawed). The consensus at the time was that it was a sort of "tail wagging the dog" or "conclusions in search of questions".

Like most psychological-oriented studies, correlation is often taken as causation, questionnaire design is flawed (leading questions, limits on answers, etc., similar to some "push polls" that are often done). There is more to the sample size besides the number of participants (or a seemingly large enough N may be necessary but isn't always sufficient).

Apparently, there were Reddit threads about how some participants "punked" the study ("trolled it", where some people participated more than once through faked identities, etc.). I didn't read these reports, so I don't know if they are true or not.

To me, a lot of trying to identify "incels" as something when it could be so nebulous that the categorization is meaningless in reality is problematic... a "solution" (political/social position masquerading as science).

Perhaps not quite the same, but I liken it to how people just accepted (for many decades) that ADHD was a real thing rather than a varying number of symptoms/descriptors used to rationalize one or more agendas. Other longstanding, "taken as actual" things have turned out to be untrue and studies used to justify policies and medical treatment shown to be invalid. It's all too common nowadays.

At the very least, caveat emptor (or lector)...

Cheers.

P.S. - If recruiting people for a study by asking for people who identify as the thing being studied doesn't strike you as flawed at its conception, I don't know what to say. Briefly, there are much more valid ways to recruit a group of people for a study without giving away "the secret". Ask for people of an age group, and male, with varying dating histories. The study would then parse the participants and more objectively identify traits/behaviors that apply to a portion of the participants. These aspects would appear in a more objective way. The way the study was set up and conducted created a already self-selected (or filtered) group of people, instead of certain common traits/behaviors being determined as a result of the study, not a priori. Crudely put, this leads to in essence reinforcing a pre-determined outcome instead of arriving at it via proper means.

Expand full comment
Edward Bartlett's avatar

The Costello research is not “qualitative.” I’ve read through the study. Its methodology can be replicated, and its interpretation of the data is reasonable and objective.

Expand full comment
Steven Fearing's avatar

Thank you.

Expand full comment
Tom Golden's avatar

Thanks Dave. I will look into this. It is not unusual for N's to be paid in research these days. My understanding was that he was from a University so I assumed it was ok. Will check it out though.

Expand full comment
Dave's avatar

Yeah, you'd think something coming from a university would have been vetted, or the research properly conducted.

Well, that hasn't been true, in general, for decades. Look at the replication crisis in medical and social science research. Plus, universities are now quite full of incompetent people.

Research done on the Internet via a website advertising for "incels" to tell their stories or answer a survey is hardly valid (besides maybe helping to formulate a hypothesis). Plus, I recall that the sample size was quite small, and being anonymous there was no real ability to check the validity of the subjects involved (their identity, whether they were just trolling, etc.). And, most of the time (in general), people using statistics (even many engineers and scientists, not just psych or other social scientists) have no clue how to validate their usage of various statistical methods.

Thanks for the video. I like the comments by Hannah when she talked about how biased or propagandizing stories tend to pull you out of your suspension of disbelief, making many shows or movies unwatchable. Most obvious are the gender swapping of roles, where (most often) the female character behaves just like a man (and not at all believably as a woman), signaling that a character was originally male but made female for a show/movie (without any effort to adapt the character to the new gender).

Cheers.

P.S. - At most universities and corporations (most everywhere) nowadays, it is difficult to conduct any kind of research on anything but "pro-feminist" topics. Being male seems to almost be a de facto disqualifying condition when trying to do some topics of research or when attempting to get funding.

P.P.S. - In recent news, most of the "research" and "treatment" for ADHD is becoming more obviously accepted as bogus (something anyone who knows how children develop and behave, esp. boys have always known)... a blurb I saw (sorry for not providing a source):

"ADHD is a misdiagnosis of normal behavior.

The feminization of education, pharmaceutical greed, and the mislabeling of normal male behavior are what’s really driving ADHD diagnoses and prescriptions."

This would be a good topic for another video/article if not something you've already done...

Expand full comment
Steven Fearing's avatar

I do not think Costello's research is garbage. He has addressed the issue of paying them. His overall understanding of incels is beyond dispute.

Expand full comment
Edward Bartlett's avatar

The sample size is 561. Paying respondents a modest sum ($20 US) is reasonable.

Expand full comment
Björn Jonsson's avatar

My impression is that "Adolescence" is sex discriminating propaganda and indoctrination. I don't pay for Netflix, so I haven't watched it however.

Expand full comment
Tom Golden's avatar

LoL! I paid for a month so that you don't have to!

Expand full comment
Padraig Sean Barie's avatar

As for Costello’s research, how does he define “incel? It’s a slang term, so what is it’s definition by psychologists and the mental health professions, and how did he determine that the study participants fit that definition?

Expand full comment
Dan Sullivan's avatar

This is the same Netflix that foisted _Cuties_ on the world.

Expand full comment
Jamie's avatar

I watched the trailer. Where is the outrage over young girls being sexualised and objectified!!

Oh, I see, its because they are escaping from their conservative background, which is also imposed on them by their 'female' mothers and they might become famous and wealthy and therefore its aright!!!

Expand full comment
Mike Roberts's avatar

I kid you not, Sir Keir Starmer has referred to 'Adolescence' as a documentary before correcting himself to a drama on two occasions but then Starmer has form for talking nonsense. Remember the 'free the sausages' gaff when talking about the Gaza situation! Also at least one presenter on BBC has referred to 'Adolescence' as a documentary.

Expand full comment
Edward Bartlett's avatar

If you look at the reports of feminist attacks on churches and pregnancy centers, the number of feminist driven attacks is far greater than the number of violent incidents by incels.

Expand full comment
Jamie's avatar

Thank you for this chat and clarity about this show.

I don't have Netflix but am often told how great they are...

Good to hear about what a forensic interview is supposed to look like. Imagine if you see this movie, read the comments as mentioned by Hannah and think, 'oh my goodness, if that is what therapy is, then I'm not doing it!"

I find it interesting with Media nowadays that a documentary is now presented as some kind of Movie which is a mix of historical facts and artistic licence by actors/producers to fill in missing details to make things more interesting - but has nothing to do with reality, because the people that were present at the actual time are now dead and the producers just make things up based on their own fantasies!!

Made up dialogue for 'dramatic' effect but now believed as reality; which 'might' feed the outrage that is happening now because so much is believed!!

Tom said: "The conversation shines a light on how entertainment media can quietly shape public perceptions"

= 100%

Expand full comment
Andrew MacDonald's avatar

Unfortunately no time to listen and watch today AND I haven't watched Adolescence so a voice for the sidelines. A very not-new observation is that men and women as social classes in the current state of things do not care about the status of men as a social class. They already know what they think feel and believe and what they're going to do when it comes to men and that's nothing. Men as a social class are pre-dismissed. They are not on the radar and in the present circumstance will continue to be dismissed.

BUT . . . but. . . have some uppity Proud Boys raise their head and the sleeping dragon wakes up. Masculine pride, carried with lightness and humor and naked willingness to engage strikes at the heart of the woke mind virus. Janice's Tonic Masculinity is kryptonite to it.

That honest pride says we're good and we know it and we're willing to engage with you on an even footing (because we know you're good too.) It's the movement from analysis to active engagement that is the game changer. That means a shift in consciousness where we are willing to focus on how we contribute to the problem we complain about. This seems hard but it's mostly hard because it's not socially sanctioned, not what we do.

(Love to hear any thoughts.)

Expand full comment
Anna's avatar

Andrew could MRA come up with a coherent strategy of what they want for boys and men to change and how this might be put in place and monitored. Everything seems to be a bit bitter and not organised and clear as to what can be achieved to help struggling boys and men. It seems men are putting out a victim mentality and this is also what they complain about with feminism. It gets confusing and complicated.

Expand full comment
Tom Golden's avatar

A good start would be stop blaming and shaming men and boys and calling them toxic. My guess is that would create a measurable shift.

Expand full comment
oivind's avatar

This idea that immigrant men are bad compared to western men, is misandrist and harmful. And it is not true.

Hannah, Tom and Janice should know better than that.

Expand full comment
Steven Fearing's avatar

I am two months removed from my deep dive into this show, which included numerous critiques and several interviews with William Costello.

In this podcast, I was impressed with how Spier recognised that the forensic assessment did not even get the essential information. (I admit that I was initially impressed by the writing of Episode 3. Now, not at all!) BTW, speaking of essential data about the event, Katie's bullying was underreported, and her physical pushing of Jamie before the attack was not mentioned at all.

But, as a student (lay expert) of evolutionary psychology and mate selection science, I was particularly put off by the dismissive attitude toward the 80-20 “rule” in the show, and the related cultural dialogue about the show. This is the biggest insult and undiscussable in the critiques and the show’s cultural fallout from the perspective of mate selection science. And one sign of the predictable feminist slant. So embedded is this narrative that the show’s authors must not even know that they are indulging in this “politically correct” framing. And/or they dare not question its truth. But undeniably, this is the belief and experience of incels.

While Costello says applying the Pareto principle to the mating market is a “blunt instrument,” there is data to support the truth of the 80-20 rule in all research of dating apps, survey data, and psychological research of male and female attraction preferences. “Attraction inequality exists in the mating market.” There is a pernicious supply and demand problem for men in the mating market. Men are attracted to more women than women are to men. Full stop. 80-20 is pretty close. From OK Cupid data, women rate 80% of men below the midpoint on an attraction scale. From Tinder, men hit the like button on 62% of female profiles, whereas women hit on less than 5% of male profiles. In evolutionary psychology, this is called "reproductive

variance." Just as a final thought, the fact that Jamie does not fit the profile of an incel is so obvious to those educated on the subject.

Expand full comment
Eohn's avatar

Thank you for this. The good will of all three participants in the discussion was on display in a very flattering way.

There was a side discussion about the harmlessness of Western men in comparison to the raping and assaulting brown men of more Eastern regions who are currently invading European communities. The Western men, Hannah and Janice seemed to be saying, are not to be painted with the same brush as those other men.

If we accept this, then it is merely an accident of birth that keeps men from living out their awful and by default misogynistic male nature. The West has found a way culturally to keep its men under control, to muzzle and arrest their base and savage nature. But the middle east, and points east of there, have not successfully so controlled their men. And if a Western man just happened to have been born outside these walls of cultural constraint, he would be just as bad as these misogynistic, woman-beating bastards.

In any case, men are always, always on trial. Maybe it's best to just shut up and accept it.

Expand full comment
Janice Fiamengo's avatar

You picked up on a certain tension in the discussion that I was aware of but not able to address--and, to be frank, wary of addressing--in our discussion. It stems from the fact that the only cases in which white girls have been stabbed to death in the UK, at least recently, were perpetrated by non-white men; and also that the major scandal of sexual violence in the UK over the past three decades involved Pakistani Muslim men sexually exploiting white girls primarily aged 11-15 years.

**

It is not an accident of birth, as I understand it, but rather the result of an evolution over centuries, that has made western societies different from others--and, in my opinion, preferable: more civilized, more productive, more self-restrained, more conducive to politeness, the rule of law, non-violence, and human flourishing generally. This is not to say that men are bad outside of the west. I certainly don't think that. There are non-western nations, such as Japan, for instance, in which men have created a very orderly and cultured society.

Furthermore, I don't think violence is necessarily bad or necessarily male. Men evolved to compete, through violence if necessary (and often self-sacrificially), in order to procreate. Women evolved, as the generally weaker and more vulnerable sex, to protect themselves and their children from violence; one of the ways they avoided violence was by not being overtly violent themselves. But studies show that women can be very violent towards those who are weaker than they are, such as children and the elderly. Women today kill more babies every year than men do. If the babies are unborn, their murders mount into the millions. Which is more reprehensible and savage, for a man to kill a woman, or for a woman to kill a baby?

Not everyone accepts that mass immigration, mainly from the Islamic countries of northern Africa and the Middle East, has contributed to an increase in civil disorder and violence, including sexual violence, in western European nations. I don't see how it can be denied, but I don't claim this to be my area of expertise. As far as I can tell, there are racial and cultural factors involved.

Expand full comment
Eohn's avatar

Thank you for your generous response Janice. I can't tell you how much I've appreciated your writings and interviews over the years since discovering you online. I don't mean to embarrass you with flattery, but your reasoned and unbeguiled esteem of the truth, as evidenced in your response here, is as inspiring as the content of your writings.

Expand full comment
Tom Golden's avatar

I agree with you Eohn 100%. Thanks for saying this.

Expand full comment