MenAreGood
Straus Exposes the Academic Veils Placed on Domestic Violence Research
October 23, 2022
Guest contributors: tgolden

This is an article I wrote 7 years ago that summarized an important journal article by Murry Straus about the ways feminist researchers lied.  We now see these same techniques used in a number of areas including the research connected to the trans issue.  A subscriber here was talking about this and I thought putting this article up would be helpful to anyone wanting to see through the BS we face today on a number of fronts.

This was part 2 of a multi-part series of artices on menaregood.com that I will link here if you are interested. Bias Agasinst Men and Boys in Psychological Research

 

Hope you find it useful. 

Straus Exposes the Academic Veils Placed on Domestic Violence Research ( 2 – Bias Against Men and Boys in Psychological Research)

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 between men and women.

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 which can be found here:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V70-Gender-symmetry-PV-Chap-11-09.pdf  (this link is now dead and was likely removed after Straus's death in 2016)

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 other 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 “lifetime 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. Harrass, 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 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.

Straus 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 we will look at a study that uses Straus’s first example, ignoring ones own data.

 

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
4
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
December 20, 2025
Bias Against Men and Boys in Mental Health Research

This video is a summary of the three studies we have examined the last three Saturdays. It’s a brief and relaxed look at the high points of those articles. Here’s a summary:

This video examines a pattern I’ve seen repeatedly in psychological research: when data complicates the familiar story of men as perpetrators and women as victims, the data about boys and men often disappears. Using three real studies—on teen dating violence, reproductive coercion, and “masculine norms”—I walk through how boys’ suffering is minimized, misrepresented, or erased as research moves from full reports to media headlines and public policy. What emerges is not just sloppy science, but a troubling bias that shapes how we see boys, men, and masculinity itself.

00:10:31
November 19, 2025
The Relentless War on Masculinity

Happy International Men's Day! It's a perfect day to acknowledge the relentless war on masculinity? Here we go!

In this video I sit down with four people I deeply respect to talk about a book I think is going to matter: The Relentless War on Masculinity: When Will It End? by David Maywald.

Joining me are:

Dr. Jim Nuzzo – health researcher from Perth and author of The Nuzzo Letter, who’s been quietly but steadily documenting how men’s health is sidelined.

Dr. Hannah Spier – an anti-feminist psychiatrist (yes, you heard that right) and creator of Psychobabble, who pulls no punches about female accountability and the mental-health system.

Lisa Britton – writer for Evie Magazine and other outlets, one of the few women bringing men’s issues into women’s media and mainstream conversation.

David Maywald – husband, father of a son and a daughter, long-time advocate for boys’ education and men’s wellbeing, and now author of The Relentless War on Masculinity.

We talk about why David wrote this book ...

01:05:19
November 17, 2025
Cancel Culture with a Vengeance

Universities and media love to brand themselves as champions of free speech and open debate. But what happens when those same institutions quietly use legal tools to gag and erase the very people who challenge their orthodoxies?

In this conversation, I’m joined by two of my favorite thinkers, Dr. Janice Fiamengo and Dr. Stephen Baskerville, to dig into a darker layer beneath “cancel culture.” We start from the case of Dr. James Nuzzo, whose FOIA request exposed a coordinated effort by colleagues and administrators to push him out rather than debate his research, and then go much deeper.

Stephen explains how non-disclosure agreements, non-disparagement clauses, and mandatory arbitration have become a hidden system of censorship in universities, Christian colleges, and even media outlets—silencing dissenters, shielding institutions from scrutiny, and quietly stripping people of their practical First Amendment rights. Janice adds her own experience with gag orders and human rights complaints, and ...

00:57:23
February 07, 2023
The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings

My apologies for the last empty post. My mistake. Let's hope this one works.

Tom takes a stab at using the podcast function. Let's see how it goes.

The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings
May 13, 2022
Boys and Rough Play

This is a short excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons. The book was meant for single mothers who really don't know much about boy's nature. They also don't have a man in the house who can stand up for the boy and his unique nature. It tries to give them some ideas about how boys and girls are different. This excerpt is about play behaviors.

Boys and Rough Play

Something men seem to do all the time that women seem to find extreamaly unlikely or impossible.

Made me laugh!!

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AKtUoYg8x/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1FwqtFuR2Z/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I have often made this connection. It’s a little too on point to not research and derstand better. I am fairly sure there is something to it.

This is a interesting show of male unity against a Person who thinks she represents others and thinks she as a member of her group is universally wanted. LOL!

post photo preview
2026 The Year of Men

This post is dedicated to my friend Mark Sherman, PhD., his sons, and his grandsons. Mark and I share a quiet hope — that we will live to see meaningful progress in the status of boys and men.

 


Every movement begins as an act of imagination. Before anything changes, someone has to picture what fairness would look like if we truly meant it. I wrote this piece to imagine that world — one where men are finally seen in full, with all their depth, strength, and vulnerability. Maybe we’re not there yet. But maybe 2026 could be the year we start to be.


2026 The Year of Men

Imagine that. 2026 becomes the year of men — a year when the conversation shifts from accusation to understanding. For the first time in half a century, men are discussed not as a problem to fix but as people to know. Their genius, their quirks, their flaws, and their quiet strengths are spoken of with the same nuance once reserved for others. College campuses devote programs to exploring men’s lives — their needs, their distinct ways of solving problems, their inner drives. Professors begin to ask questions that once felt off-limits: How have we misunderstood men? What happens when we stop pathologizing masculine traits and start appreciating them for what they are?

The change begins almost accidentally. A viral documentary follows several men through their daily lives — a father fighting for custody, a veteran mentoring fatherless boys, a young man navigating college under a cloud of suspicion.The film ignites something. People start talking about the thick wall of stereotype threat that has been built around men for the last fifty years, and how it quietly shapes everything — from the classroom to the courtroom. The wall doesn’t fall overnight, but it begins to crack.

Soon, the media joins in. Morning shows run thoughtful discussions about men’s emotional lives — how men experience feelings deeply but process them through action, purpose, and silence. Reporters highlight research showing that men’s stoicism, logic, and devotion to service are not deficiencies in empathy but expressions of it. Family court reforms begin to take shape; male victims of domestic violence are no longer turned away simply because they are male. It feels like a cultural exhale — the long-suppressed conversation finally given air.

At first, people are disoriented. After decades of being told that men’s pain doesn’t count, even fairness feels radical. But something shifts. Women, too, begin to see their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers with fresh eyes. The conversation isn’t about blame anymore — it’s about balance. A new curiosity replaces old resentment. The year of men doesn’t erase anyone; it invites everyone to understand half of humanity that’s been caricatured for too long.

Could it happen? Could a culture so comfortable blaming men ever turn toward truly seeing them? Maybe not all at once. But every change in history begins the same way — with the simple act of imagining it.



What Changes During the Year of Men

The first signs of change come from the ground up. Teachers start noticing boys again — not as potential problems to manage, but as minds to cultivate. Schools experiment with programs that fit how boys learn best: movement, competition, hands-on projects, and purpose. Reading lists begin to include stories of male courage and vulnerability that go beyond superheroes or villains. Teachers are trained to see how boys’ energy isn’t disobedience — it’s engagement looking for direction. For the first time in decades, boys begin to feel that classrooms were made with them in mind.

On college campuses, the tone shifts from suspicion to curiosity. “Men’s Studies” — long a taboo phrase — finds a foothold. Seminars explore how fatherlessness, male shame, and status pressure shape young men’s mental health. Professors dare to say what was once unspeakable: that men have suffered, too. A handful of women’s studies professors even cross over, lending their voices to help create a balanced understanding of gender that includes both sides of the human story. The conversations are messy but alive — and that’s the point. Truth is finally allowed to be complicated again.

The media, too, begins to rediscover men. Documentaries appear about the quiet heroism of everyday fathers, about men mentoring boys in forgotten neighborhoods, about the millions of men who keep the world turning through labor, repair, and service. Morning talk shows, once filled with segments ridiculing male behavior, start inviting men to speak for themselves. The tone softens. People listen. A viral story circulates about a construction crew that raised money to send a coworker’s son to college after his dad’s death. “This,” one host says on air, “is masculinity too.”

Relationships begin to heal in small but powerful ways. Wives notice that when their husbands go quiet, it’s not distance but effort — a man trying to manage his emotions in the only way that feels safe. Sons start asking their fathers for advice again, and fathers rediscover how much they have to give. In counseling offices, therapists begin learning what clinicians have long said — that men process emotions through action, that their silence isn’t absence but presence in another form. Couples therapy starts to meet men halfway instead of treating them as defective women.

And then there’s mental health. The great unspoken epidemic of male despair finally becomes speakable. Instead of shaming men for not seeking help, society asks why the help offered has so little to do with how men heal. Clinics start experimenting with men’s groups centered around work, movement, humor, and camaraderie — not confession circles that make them feel judged. Suicide prevention campaigns stop using guilt and start using respect. The message shifts from “talk more” to “we see you.” And something remarkable happens: men begin to respond.




The Resistance

Of course, not everyone welcomes the Year of Men.
The early months bring a predictable storm. Certain media outlets call it a backlash. Activist groups issue statements warning that focusing on men will “set back progress.” Think pieces appear overnight insisting that “men already have enough,” as if empathy were a limited resource that must be rationed. A few universities cancel events after protests claim that discussing men’s needs “centers privilege.” But this time, something is different: the public doesn’t buy it. Ordinary people — men and women alike — begin asking simple, disarming questions: How is fairness a threat? How can caring for men possibly hurt women?

The resistance grows louder before it grows weaker. It feeds on fear — fear that empathy for men might expose hypocrisy, that the old narratives might not survive open scrutiny. For decades, the culture has run on a quiet formula: men are the problem, women the solution. Challenging that myth threatens a moral economy that has funded entire industries — from grievance studies to gender bureaucracies to the political machinery that profits from division. When men begin to speak, those who built careers speaking about men feel the ground shift beneath them.

In talk shows and social media debates, the same tired accusations resurface: that compassion for men means indifference to women, that noticing male pain is a form of denial. Yet the tone of the conversation has changed. This time, people have seen too much. They’ve seen fathers emotional pain outside family courts. They’ve seen male victims of abuse turned away from shelters. They’ve watched boys fall behind in schools that call them “toxic” for being active, assertive, or proud. The moral logic of exclusion begins to collapse under its own weight.

And then something unexpected happens: some of the loudest critics begin to soften. A few prominent feminists admit that they never intended for fairness to become a zero-sum game. Others, quietly at first, confess that they are mothers of sons — and they now see what men have endured through their children’s eyes. The resistance doesn’t disappear, but it loses its moral certainty. It becomes clear that opposing compassion for men requires something unnatural: denying reality itself.

The Year of Men doesn’t crush opposition; it transforms it. It doesn’t argue so much as invite. It reminds people that love of men isn’t hatred of women — it’s love of humanity. The movement doesn’t demand anyone’s permission to exist. It simply tells the truth with calm persistence until the shouting fades and listening begins again.



The Renewal

By the end of the Year of Men, something subtle yet profound has changed. The culture feels calmer, more honest, more whole. The anger that once filled every gender conversation has lost its fuel. People have begun to see men not as adversaries or caricatures but as essential parts of the human story — the builders, protectors, thinkers, and dreamers whose lives are as sacred as anyone’s.

The public learns what therapists have known for decades: that men’s silence is often love in disguise. That the man fixing the leaky faucet before anyone wakes is saying thank you in his own language. That the husband who works overtime, the son who restrains his tears at a funeral, the firefighter who risks his life for strangers — all are expressing something profoundly emotional, though the culture has lacked the ears to hear it.

In this new climate, men begin to relax their shoulders. They laugh more easily, reconnect with friends, and find meaning again in work, fatherhood, and service. Fathers feel free to be the masculine dad that they are, and boys no longer learn that masculinity is something to apologize for.

The walls that once separated men and women begin to crumble, replaced by curiosity, gratitude, and humor — the natural bonds of people who have finally stopped competing for moral high ground and started building a shared one.

Women, too, find a surprising sense of relief. Freed from the burden of constant grievance, they rediscover what they always loved about men — their steadiness, their generosity, their willingness to stand in harm’s way. The battle of the sexes gives way to partnership. In homes and classrooms and workplaces, people start asking a forgotten question: What are men for? And the answers are not defensive anymore. They are joyous.

By the time December arrives, commentators summarize 2026 as “the year empathy grew up.” It’s not the end of the story, only the beginning — the moment when society realized that healing half of humanity heals the whole. The Year of Men becomes not just a cultural milestone but a mirror, reminding us that progress isn’t about trading one group’s dignity for another’s. It’s about finally understanding that men are good — and always have been.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
December 25, 2025
post photo preview
A Quiet Thank You to Men, Today
Merry Christmas!


A Quiet Thank You to Men, Today

Today isn’t a day for debate.
It’s a day for gratitude.

So I want to pause and offer a quiet thank you to men — especially the ones who are easy to overlook.

To the men who showed up quietly.
Who didn’t announce their presence or demand recognition.
Who simply did what needed to be done.

To the men who carried financial stress without complaint.
Who worried in silence about providing, about bills, about futures — and still tried to keep the mood light for everyone else.

To the men who fixed, drove, cooked, shoveled, assembled, paid, and planned.
Who solved problems behind the scenes so the day could feel smooth and warm for others.

To the men who swallowed loneliness so others could feel joy.
Who sat at the edge of gatherings, or weren’t invited at all, yet still sent gifts, made calls, or showed kindness where they could.

To the men who didn’t get thanked — and didn’t expect to.

And today, I also want to acknowledge men who carry heavier, quieter burdens.

Men who have been falsely accused, and discovered how quickly the world can turn away from them.
Men who have been divorced and still worked relentlessly to father their children in a hostile environment, where their love was questioned and their access was constrained.
Men who have felt dejected and misunderstood, not because they lacked care or effort, but because the story told about them left no room for their humanity.

Men who have been trying — sometimes desperately — to do the right thing in systems that seemed stacked against them.

Men whose goodness has gone unnamed.

Christmas has a way of highlighting what is visible — gifts, decorations, smiles — but it often misses what is held. The restraint. The responsibility. The endurance. The quiet decision to keep going.

So today, this is simply a thank you.

Thank you for the ways you show love through action.
Thank you for the strength that doesn’t ask to be admired.
Thank you for the steadiness that makes joy possible for others.

You matter. Your efforts count.

Men have always mattered — today is a good day to say it out loud.

Merry Christmas.  Men Matter. Men Are Good.

Read full Article
December 22, 2025
post photo preview
What Men Bring to Christmas


Women are often the heartbeat of the social side of Christmas — the cards, the gatherings, the baking, the presents, the details that make everything glow. But what men bring to Christmas is just as essential, even if it’s quieter and less visible.

Men bring structure. They’re the ones hauling the tree, hanging the lights, fixing what’s broken, driving through the weather, making sure there’s wood for the fire and fuel in the car. They create the framework that holds the celebration up — the unspoken foundation that allows everything else to happen.

They bring steadiness. When things get tense or chaotic — when someone’s late, or the kids are bouncing off the walls — it’s often the calm presence of a man that settles the moment. That quiet “it’s all right” energy grounds the room and restores a sense of safety and ease.

They bring tradition and meaning. Many men are the keepers of ritual: the same breakfast every Christmas morning, the drive to see the lights, the reading of ’Twas the Night Before Christmas. Their constancy ties the present to the past. It gives children a sense that they belong to something enduring.

And men bring humor — the kind that doesn’t just entertain but heals. When the wrapping paper piles up or the cookies burn, it’s a man’s grin or a playful remark that resets everyone’s mood. Men’s humor carries wisdom; it says, let’s not take ourselves too seriously. It reminds us that Christmas isn’t about perfection — it’s about joy.

Finally, men bring quiet joy. They find it not in the spotlight but in watching the people they love — a partner’s smile, a child’s laughter, the flicker of the tree in the dark. Their satisfaction is in knowing they helped create that warmth, often without needing credit for it.

When I worked as a therapist with the bereaved, I saw this again and again after a father’s death. Families would describe a subtle shift — not just grief, but a loss of containment. Without dad, things felt looser, more chaotic, less certain. The house might look the same, but the emotional gravity had changed. What they were missing was that quiet, stabilizing force men bring — the invisible boundary that holds the family together without needing to be named.

It’s one of the paradoxes of men’s contribution: you don’t notice it when it’s there, only when it’s gone.

Women make Christmas sparkle, but men make it stand. Together they form the harmony that makes the season whole — love expressed in different languages, both necessary, both beautiful.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals