MenAreGood
Teen Violence - When Ideology Trumps Data - 3 Bias Against Men and Boys in Psychological Research
April 15, 2023

 

A friend emailed me a link a couple of months ago to an article from Great Britain about teen violence. The friend was worried that the article was biased against boys. Here’s how it started:

  • Teenage boys were urged not to violently abuse their girlfriends in a new Government campaign launched today.
  • TV, radio, internet and poster ads will target young males aged 13 to 18 in an attempt to show the consequences of abusive relationships. It is part of a wider effort by ministers to cut domestic violence against both women and younger girls.
  • Research published last year by the NSPCC found a quarter of teenage girls said they had been physically abused by their boyfriends.
  • One in six said they had been pressured into sex and one in three said they had gone further sexually than they had wanted to.

I was a bit taken back by the article considering the recent research on teen violence which has been finding that relationship violence in teens is fairly symmetrical with both boys and girls being perpetrators and victims. This article was offering a very different perspective from the studies I had been seeing. It was clearly assuming that the girls were the primary victims and the boys the primary perpetrators which reflects an archaic and outdated stereotype about domestic violence. It made me wonder exactly what was happening. I read several more articles online about the ad campaign mentioned in the first article and was shocked to see that the focus of the campaign was indeed solely to help girls and to “teach” boys about not abusing their girlfriends.

In each of the articles there was a reference to the research findings that drove the ad campaign. I decided to go back to the source and see what the original research had found.

The original study was sponsored by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) of Great Britain and was in two parts. The first part was the “full report” and was a detailed 209 page research report explaining methodology, results, implications and conclusions. The next was the Executive Summary which was a 10 page summation of the findings of the full report. It was a quick read meant to give people the essence of the larger document. I read through the “full report” and then the executive summary. It was striking to me that the data in the full report actually showed that boys were victims of teen violence. The original news article I had read had mentioned that the research had found that 25% of girls said they had been physically abused by their boyfriends. What the news article omitted saying was that the same research had also found that 18% of boys had said that they had been physically abused by their girlfriends. This meant that this research found that almost half of the victims of teen relationship violence were boys! Somehow this important fact had been omitted from the news report.

There were plenty of other headlines that could have been drawn from the data of the full report that showed the boys to have been victims and the girls perpetrators but they were nowhere to be seen in any of the news articles. Here are a couple of examples of headlines that could be written from the data of the full report:

  • 25% of those reporting physically forcing their partners into having sexual intercourse were girls – Table 15 page 82 full report
  • Nearly three times as many girls reported using SEVERE violence in relationships. table 11 – page 75 full report
  • Over three times as many girls reported using partner violence in their relationships table 10 page 74 full report
  • Over 1/3 of those reporting being pressured into kissing, touching or something else were boys. table 6 page 66 full report–
  • Nearly half (42%) of the victims of teen relationship violence were boys 
Table 3 page 44 full report
  • Nearly one third of the victims of severe violence were boys
Table 4 page 45 full report
  • Twice as many girls reported physically forcing their partners into “kissing, touching, or something else” more than a few times. Table 13 page 82 full report

This is just a sampling of the sorts of findings in the full report. It is obvious that their survey clearly indicated that teen relationship violence was not gender based and both the victims and the perpetrators were both boys and girls. However, what I found after reading both the full report and the executive summary was that the full report had data that showed boys to be victims and girls to be perpetrators but the executive summary seemed to have considerably less information about male victims and female perpetrators. In fact the executive summary seemed to focus more on female victims and male perpetrators.

I found myself wondering how this transition could take place. Boys were shown to be victims in the original study, often not in as great a number as the girls but victims all the same. Generally the boys comprised about 25-42% of the victims. Certainly not the majority but also not a small number that could be ignored. But ignore them they did!

The NSPCC introduced this research to the media via a press release. We can see the same tendency of moving away from focusing on boys when looking at the words in the press release. What started in the full report as an apparently egalitarian look into teen relationship violence progressively looked less so in the Executive Summary and now with the press release it looks to have moved one more step towards focusing solely on girls. Here’s the opening of the press release. Note the focus on “girls only” in both the headline and the first paragraphs:

Teen girls abused by boyfriends warns NSPCC
Press releases
01 September 2009
A third of teenage girls in a relationship suffer unwanted sexual acts and a quarter physical violence, reveals new research(1) launched today (01 September 2009) by the NSPCC(2) and the University of Bristol(3).


The survey of 13 to 17-year-olds found that nearly nine out of ten girls had been in an intimate relationship. Of these, one in six said they had been pressured into sexual intercourse and 1 in 16 said they had been raped. Others had been pressured or forced to kiss or sexually touch.


A quarter of girls had suffered physical violence such as being slapped, punched, or beaten by their boyfriends.

Girls are highlighted repeatedly in the press release. If one only read the press release you might assume that the boys were incidental and that the girls were clearly the identified victims of teen relationship violence. The boys actually did get mentioned in one paragraph (one out of 18 paragraphs, eleven of which were about girls). Here it is:

Nearly nine out of ten boys also said they had been in a relationship. A smaller number reported pressure or violence from girls. (Only one in seventeen boys in a relationship reported being pressured or forced into sexual activity and almost one in five suffered physical violence in a relationship).

Note how the boys victimization is minimized with words like “a smaller number” and “only one in seventeen.” Keep in mind that the “smaller number” referred to in the second sentence was 18% versus 25% which had been the figure for girls. While 18 is smaller than 25, it is not that much smaller. Another important difference is that the girls 25% stat was mentioned in the opening sentence of the document (and indirectly in the headline) while the boys 18% stat was mentioned as an afterthought in parentheses. Yes, the boys percentage was smaller but it seems very obvious that this press release is trying to marginalize the victimization of boys.

Note that the press release mentions that one in 17 girls had been raped. This works out to about 5.8% of the females surveyed. What they don’t mention is that the same table in the full report that showed that 5.8% of girls were raped also showed that 3.3% of the boys were also raped. This stat never made it beyond the full report. The press release mentions the rape of girls but is completely silent on the shocking statistic that 3.3% of the boys were raped. The fact is that their data from the full report shows boys comprised over one third of the rape victims. Not a word about this.

It now seems easy to understand how the media articles focused so exclusively on girls and ignored the needs of boys. They likely only read the press release and maybe a part of the executive summary. The press release might very well have been the only document they read about the study and it clearly focused almost exclusively on girls while ignoring the needs of boys. How bad did it get in focusing on just girls? Here is a sampling of typical headlines from actual news articles on this research and ad campaign:


Many Girls’ Abused by Boyfriends
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8230844.stm

Third of teenage girls forced into sex, NSPCC survey finds
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/01/teenage-sexual-abuse-nspcc-report

1 in 3 Teenage Girls Tell of Sexual Abuse by Their Boyfriends
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210375/One-teenage-girls-physically-abused-boyfriend.html

Teen Girls Abused by Boyfriends Warns NSPCC 
 http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6524.html

 

Almost every headline I found focused on girls as victims. I never found one headline that focused on boys. The articles would occasionally mention that boys were vulnerable but the main thrust was surely the girls vulnerability and victimhood.
The ad campaign is the real world response to the findings of this research using TV, radio, internet and poster ads in attempts to change behaviours of teen relationship violence. It is where the theoretical ends and the actual support and tax dollars begin. Inexplicably, the focus of the ad campaign is entirely on girls as victims of relationship violence while boys are seen as the problem and are taught to not abuse their girlfriends. Somehow the original research had shown that both boys and girls were victims of relationship violence and by the time we made our way to the media articles and then to the ad campaign we find that the original data is all but forgotten.
How did this happen?

The Full Report and then boys disappear

The full report offers an abundance of data that shows that boys are victims of teen partner violence but somehow the recommendations of both the full report and the executive summary seem to focus primarily on girls. Here’s a quick summary extrapolated from the full report:

According to their survey:

72% girls reported experiencing emotional violence
51% of boys reported emotional violence
BOYS WERE 41% of the victims of emotional violence in teen relationships

25% of girls experienced physical partner violence
18% of the boys experienced physical partner violence
BOYS WERE 42% of the victims of physical partner violence in teen relationships

31% of girls experienced sexual partner violence
16% of boys experienced sexual partner violence
BOYS WERE 34% of the victims of sexual partner violence in teen relationships.

So the boys ranged between 34-42% of the victims as recorded in the survey, The full report states this loud and clear in the data but then with the recommendations of both the full report and the executive summary and then the press release the boys seems to simply disappear. Why could that be? The researchers fail to explain fully the reasons for this but if you read between the lines you can find that they offer two reasons. The first is that the survey responses indicate that girls are more “impacted” by relationship violence than the boys. There is a question on the survey that asks about emotional reactions to the violence and the girls were much more likely to check the boxes that indicated they were scared/upset/humiliated. The boys were more likely to check boxes that said they were angry/annoyed or the box that said there was no effect on them. The researchers seem to have taken this difference and decided that since the girls were more “impacted” from the experience of violence that they should be the ones to get the attention and services. There are a number of places in the full report where this is implied. Here is one:

This research has demonstrated that a fundamental divide exists in relation to how girls and boys are affected by partner violence, and this divide needs to be a central component in the development of professional responses to this issue.

Just what does “professional responses to this issue” mean? They don’t say but we can only assume that they are suggesting that girls receive more attention and services due to their being more impacted by the violence. Considering the recommendations focus on girls and ignore the needs of boys I think the above assumption is a good one. I would be happy to be corrected on this assumption if I am incorrect.

The researchers seem willing to basically ignore their own substantial evidence that boys are victims of violence simply because the girls have a greater emotional reaction. Here’s another quote:

These findings are further elaborated on in the interview data where girls consistently described the harmful impact that the violence had on their welfare, often long term, while boy victims routinely stated they were unaffected or, at the very worst, annoyed. These results provide the wider context in which teenage partner violence needs to be viewed.

Let’s keep in mind that the above quoted interview data, which we will examine later, included only 62 hand-selected girls and 29 similarly selected boys. Importantly, only one of the 29 boys was a victim of non-reciprocal violence so making generalizations based on the interview data is likely unreliable especially considering the survey data was collected from over 1300 teens. Note also that by saying “the wider context in which teenage partner violence needs to be viewed” we can only assume the researchers are again suggesting that girls be given preference in services and aid. What we do know is that the data on violence against boys is ignored in the recommendation sections and also in the ad campaign. The following quote gives us a bit more clarity regarding the views of the researchers:

Intervention programmes need to reflect this fundamental difference by ensuring that the significant impact of violence on girls’ wellbeing is recognised and responded to, while enabling boys to recognise the implications of partner violence for their partners and themselves.

This statement clearly shows that the researchers believe that the girls should be treated differently and intervention programs need to “reflect” the difference that girls are more impacted by the violence.

But are girls more impacted? I am not so sure. Let’s start by looking at the actual question on the survey:

3 How did it make you feel when force was used against you? 

scared/frightened 
angry/annoyed 
humiliated 
upset/unhappy 
loved/protected 
thought it was funny 
no effect

“If you don’t see it, it must not exist.”

The researchers stated that the answers to this question showed a big difference in boys and girls responses about the impact that the violence had on them. They don’t give the raw data about the responses and don’t offer the numbers each sex chose for each answer but they give us the summary saying that girls were much more “impacted.” There are very good reasons for that. This question is a set up since boys and girls will naturally answer it very differently. The creators of this question seem to fail to understand the hierarchical nature of boys and their strong natural reluctance to show any lack of independence. If the boys had checked “scared/frightened”, “humiliated” or “upset/unhappy” they would be admitting that they were less than independent. This is usually avoided while a choice such as “no effect” or “angry/annoyed” would be much more likely in order to maintain their image. As Warren Farrell would say “The weakness of men is the facade of strength: the strength of women is the facade of weakness.”

The men and boys are much more likely to choose a response that will portray them as strong. If this is correct it is easy to understand how boys’ responses might not accurately convey their degree of hurt or upset. It is very possible that the boys who checked the “no effect” box were just as impacted by the violence as their female counterparts. With these sorts of questions it leaves us simply not knowing. To suggest the direction of future services based on the responses to this question would be very risky and likely give very poor results.

I wonder if the researchers would think that a rape victim who claimed there there was no impact on her would not need support services? Would clinicians simply ignore her? No, I would bet they wouldn’t. If a group of domestic violence victims claimed that the violence had no impact on them would they quickly assume that group did not need support services? No. Then why would they dismiss the trauma of boys simply because they have marked a survey question differently and reported to be less upset? They would realize that people have very unique responses to trauma and that not having an immediate or verbal emotional reaction to a trauma does not in any way indicate that that person should be ignored. That is simply ridiculous.

Having worked with trauma victims for many years I know very well that some people will sometimes not even begin to feel the negative impact of a trauma for months and others for years. Restricting services for victims of trauma due to their response seeming to show less emotional impact is one of the zaniest ideas I have heard for some time. Denying services to a birth group for this reason seems to simply be bigoted.

Are the researchers biased against boys?

There are numerous indications, in addition to what has already been described, that the researchers have an anti-boy bias. There are the obvious dismissals of the survey data that shows boys to be victims of partner violence and the complete focus on girls as victims. But there are a number of more subtle clues in the study that seem to indicate a disdain for boys.

When they did mention boys as victims the report tended to minimize their experience. Here is a quote:

Boys’ experiences of violence
Little evidence existed to support the possibility that boys, although they were negatively affected by their partner’s violence, felt unable either to voice or to recognise their vulnerability. Boys minimised their own use of violence as “messing around”. Boys also reported the violence as mutual, although they often used disproportionate force compared to their female partners.

Rather than comment on the experience of the boys to violence the researchers focus on whether they could “give voice” to the negative affects of their partners violence. This seems to be a weak attempt to show that boys could indeed voice their concerns about being victims of violence and since they were able to voice that response they must not be “held back” by traditional masculinity from being able to express their vulnerability. The unspoken assumption seems to be that since they can voice the pain they are not holding back due to traditional masculinity and simply aren’t impacted by the violence. It just doesn’t matter while for the girls it really does matter. These seem to be distractions from the reality that the boys have been victimized. Reading the above paragraph will give the reader a sense of how the boys were treated differently in this study. Their pain was minimized and rationalized by claiming the were really not so impacted. The thrust is to say that boys do experience violence from their female partners but they aren’t so negatively impacted! They are able to voice or recognize their vulnerability. It is well known that men and boys will try to minimize any sort of hurt or injury and try to maintain an independent stance. This by no means indicates they are not impacted, it just means that will try to not let you know it. It is for this very reason that we need to take a different approach with boys who may be victimized but this study seems to prefer to simply ignore the pain of boys and focus just on the girls.

Messing Around

The quote above states that “Boys minimised their own use of violence as “messing around.” The full report affirms that boys label their own violence as “messing around” 56% of the time. This is given later in the recommendations section as a reason that boys should be taught about being aware of their violence. (see below) But what about the girls? When you see that boys are singled out for this perception of “messing around” you would think that the girls would not explain their own violence in that manner. Not in the Alice in Wonderland environment of this study. Actually by the researchers own numbers the girls labelled their own violence as “messing around” 43% of the time. Just 13% points below the boys. You would think that both boys and girls would need to learn about their own violence but somehow the only ones that need to learn are the boys! That is an anti-boy bias.

Here is the quote:

“However, although intervention programmes should ensure that the needs of both girls and boys are recognised, it is important that the wider experiences of girls remain a focus. In addition, boys’ minimisation of their own use of violence – by dismissing it as “messing around” and justifications based on mutual aggression – needs to be challenged.”

Why would the boys need to be challenged about this and the girls not? The boys said their violence was “messing around” 56% of the time and the girls said their violence was a slightly lower “messing around” 43% of the time. Clearly a strong bias in favor of girls and anti-boys.

The researchers went a step farther than just recommending that girls victimisation should be the focus. The researchers made the claim that boys lower scores on the impact question actually made them more dangerous to their female partners. Here is a quote:

If boys view the impact of their victimisation as negligible, they may also apply this understanding to their own actions. Thus, they may believe that their partners are also unaffected by their use of violence.

The implication here is that the boys ignorance/insensitivity of the impact of violence against them shows that they would be less than sensitive to their own violence used against a partner. I don’t believe that for a second considering almost every boy has had it drilled into their brains that they are never to hit a girl. Let’s use the same sort of reasoning but apply it instead to girls. According to the survey the girls suffer a much greater emotional impact from being victims of violence. Yet by the girls report, they use violence three times MORE in relationships than boys even though they know it’s negative impact and is hurtful. This would lead us to believe that girls are aware of the power to hurt others with violence and choose to do so far more often than boys. This doesn’t put the girls in a particularly good light now does it?

Thus, from these findings it seems conclusive that partner sexual violence
represents a problem for girls, while boys report being unaffected.

That pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it?

Boys are more violent! When the subjective trumps the objective

The survey was supposed to be the main source of data but in some ways the researchers seem to put much more stock in the subjective information they had obtained via the interviews. While the survey in the full report showed clearly that the girls were three times more likely to report using violence in relationship suddenly the researchers are exclaiming that there was a clear consensus from the girls that boys used physical violence in relationship more often than girls. Here’s the quote:

“There was a clear consensus within girls’ accounts that boys used physical violence in relationships more often than girls. This common understanding regarding the gendered nature of physical violence was reported by almost all girls, whether they themselves had experienced violence or not.”

This is from page 94 of the full report and shows the researchers evaluations of the girls interviews. The most glaring part of this is that the survey portion of the study showed clearly that girls were 3-6 times more likely to report being violent in relationships and yet the subjective data drawn from the interviews claims that there was a “common understanding regarding the gendered nature of physical violence” for “almost all girls” that “boys used physical violence in relationships more often than girls.” This is a huge discrepancy when one half of the study shows girls to report being much more inclined to be violent than the boys and the other half claiming that “boys used physical violence in relationship more often than girls.” This demands an explanation but there was little to be found. The closest the researchers come is to use the hackneyed claim that girls high rates of violence in relationships is due to their using violence as self defense. But if you look at the numbers this claim falls flat on its face. The facts are that 25% of the girls reported being violent in relationship compared to 8% of the boys. When you subtract the percentages of violence claimed to be in self defense from both boys (30%) and girls (44%) you find that 14% of girls were violent in relationship and 5.6% of the boys for reasons other than self defense. That’s nearly three times more girls than boys. (-30% of 8%= 5.6% and -44% of 25%= 14%) Not making this an important point in this research is very suspect. This difference is huge. Girls reported almost three times as often that they perpetrated violence in their relationships and yet there is a claim that almost all girls believed boys used “physical violence in relationship more often” and this leads us to the idea that girls are in need of services and boys in need of changing their behaviors? Baffling. Clearly misandry.

One partial explanation of this is shown in the following quote:

Only 6 per cent of boys, compared to a third of girls, claimed that they were negatively affected by the emotional violence they experienced. This gendered impact disparity upholds Stark’s (2007) contention that coercive control, which many of our components of emotional violence reflect, is made meaningful only when placed within a gendered power understanding of intimate violence. Thus, although girls had used emotional violence, without it being underpinned by other forms of inequality and power, their attempts were rendered largely ineffectual.

Incredibly, this section seems to be giving girls a pass for their emotional violence. The pattern continues: When girls are perpetrators they are given excuses, when boys are victims they are ignored and minimized.

Reporting oddities

When you look closely at the section about girls reporting more frequent perpetration of violence in relationship you notice something very odd.  Look at the following paragraph and note the researchers choice of words.  Note that girls “report” and boys “admit” (emphasis mine):

Page 74 More girls reported using physical violence against their partner than did boys; this represented a significant difference (x2 (1) = 60.804, p<.001). A quarter (n=148) of girls compared to 8 per cent (n=44) of boys stated that they had used some form of physical violence against their partner. Looking first at less severe physical violence (see table 10), the vast majority of girls (89 per cent) reporting the use of physical violence had used it once or a few times. Only a few (11 per cent) used it more frequently. Similarly, the small proportion of boys who admitted using physical violence also generally used it infrequently (83 per cent).

Perhaps the words “report” and “admit” have different meanings in Great Britain but here in the US they aren’t usually the same.  Report generally means to make a statement or announcement.  The word admit however has a different spin.  Often it has more to do with conceding or confessing.  One assumption from the wording the researchers  have chosen would be to think that they simply didn’t believe what the boys reported.  In other words they would only concede or admit to a certain amount of violence.  Basically, implying that they are not telling the entire story. This is of course conjecture on my part but it simply seems like more anti-boy bias.

The Interview Section

As was previously explained the research had both a quantitative section and qualitative section. The qualitative section consisted of semi-structured interviews which included the utilization of five vignettes. The vignettes were stories that were told to the participant and then the stories relevance was discussed as a part of the interview. The stated goals of the researchers was to use the quantitative survey to gain data and use the interviews to enhance their understanding.

The researchers claimed that they had problems in getting participants for the interviews in the manner they had originally planned so they switched mid-stream to a different approach described below:

“We therefore moved to a system whereby researchers observed which young people seemed to be engaging with the survey. They then asked those young people if they would like to take part in the interview stage.”

So they hand picked the interview participants based on their own subjective impression of whether the young person was “engaging with the survey.” This sounds to me to be a direct invitation to a very biased sample.  Then you find out that the choices they made of those who were “engaging in the survey” were 62 girls but only 29 boys.  You also find that of the 29 boys only one had experienced being a victim of non reciprocal violence in relationship! Makes you wonder about their ideas of “engaging in the survey.” Needless to say the boys section describing the interviews was only 22 pages long while the section about the girls was over 60 pages.  Even with such a short section for the boys most of the writing was about boys violence not their reaction to being victims of violence. Girls victimization was highlighted as was boys violence. Even in the section on boys as victims.

The Vignettes

When I first started looking at the issue of this survey I emailed the folks at NSPCC and asked for a copy of the original questionnaire and copies of the vignettes.  They were kind enough to email me both.  I had suspected that the vignettes would be slanted towards the girls and so I was not surprised to see that the stories were mostly about boys possessiveness, shouting, name calling, violence, and sexual pressuring.  Only one story of the five portrayed the female as the perpetrator and in that story the perpetrated act was very mild.  The girl (and her cronies) stole the boys cell phone, made unkind comments the next day and then apologized.  In the other vignettes we see boys being violent or pushing girls into sexual behaviors that they don’t want.  In one we see the girls using violence, but in self defense.  To the researchers credit the first three vignettes have questions following the story which ask if this sort of behavior might also exist in the opposite sex.  Inexplicably they omit that important question on the final two vignettes which focus on sexual demands.  This is highly suspect and leads one to guess that their ideological bias may have disallowed them to see boys as sexual victims and/or the girls as perpetrators.  Interestingly their data from the full report shows that girls freely admit to sexually pressuring their male boyfriends so this again leaves us wondering why they would avoid the question in the interview section.

Would the researchers tolerate a set of vignettes that showed 80% of the perpetrators to be female and the only male perpetrator was portrayed as having stolen a cell phone and then apologized? I would bet we would hear loud rants about inclusiveness and marginalization and they would be correct!  It seems to me that these vignettes seriously marginalized the boys in this survey and likely left them feeling misunderstood and left out since their situations were simply not portrayed, acknowledged or included.

I was thinking that an alternative to these five stories could have easily been to keep the five stories as is but for the girls tell the story with female victims and male perpetrators and for the boys  use the same stories but do the opposite and tell it from the boys perspective.  It would take a little bit of editing but I think it would have been much more effective and would have left both boys and girls with a sense that their side of the story was heard and understood to exist. Victims are much more likely to come forward when they see that their plight is acknowledged. Maybe a possibility would have been to use neutral names for all parties in the stories and therefore not even know the sex of the offender or victim!   Another option might have been to have six stories with three being male perpetrators and three being female perpetrators.  One story each for the three categories of violence.  I think any of the above would have been an improvement over what they used.

The fact that girls were portrayed in four of five vignettes more as victims and boys more as perpetrators and that any suggestion about girls perpetration of sexual pressuring was absent seems to be more evidence that the project has been impacted by an ideology that prefers to see women/girls as victims and men/boys as perpetrators.  If we allow this sort of bias to continue in our midst we are failing both our boys and our girls.   If we allow it to continue in social science research literature then we are surely in trouble.

Recommendation Section

Here’s a brief look at the recommendations section of the executive summary.  There is only one paragraph in the recommendation section that mentions boys.  Here it is:

Impact of teenage partner violence – the gender divide
The impact of partner violence is indisputably differentiated by gender; girl victims report much higher levels of negative impact than do boys. This is not to imply that boys’ experiences of victimisation should be ignored. It may be that boys minimise the impact of the violence due to the need to portray a certain form of masculinity. However, although intervention programmes should ensure that the needs of both girls and boys are recognised, it is important that the wider experiences of girls remain a focus. In addition, boys’ minimisation of their own use of violence – by dismissing it as “messing around” and justifications based on mutual aggression – needs to be challenged.

This paragraph is baffling. Let’s break it down. Here is the first section:

The impact of partner violence is indisputably differentiated by gender; girl victims report much higher levels of negative impact than do boys. This is not to imply that boys’ experiences of victimisation should be ignored.

It first makes a claim that partner violence is differentiated by gender and that girls experience more negative impact, implying that boys should be ignored. Then they deny that they mean to ignore boys.

It may be that boys minimise the impact of the violence due to the need to portray a certain form of masculinity.

They offer a possibility for an explanation.

However, although intervention programmes should ensure that the needs of both girls and boys are recognised, it is important that the wider experiences of girls remain a focus

Then they ignore their own explanation and aver that the “wider experiences of girls” (whatever that means) should take precedence.

In addition, boys’ minimisation of their own use of violence – by dismissing it as “messing around” and justifications based on mutual aggression – needs to be challenged.

Then they finalize things by saying that the emphasis on boys should be their violence and especially their minimization of their own violence as has been previously discussed.

I find this paragraph to be very vague and unclear. I am guessing this is intentional since what they really want to say is likely girls are worthy victims and boys are not is hard for them to put into words since it would clearly leave them looking bigoted. Being vague and obfuscating is a much safer strategy and it still gets the job done! One thing is clear after reading it: The reader is sure that for whatever reasons, girls need to get the lions share of services and help and boys need to shape up!

Is the ideology of the researchers driving their focus on girls?

If you look at this from purely a marketing standpoint these researchers have accomplished a remarkable feat. They have been able to create a document that has been labelled a “study” which has found objective data and then made conclusions and recommendations that ignore their own data. They took it a step farther and got the conclusions and recommendations printed in a vast number of media articles which established to millions of viewers, listeners and readers that their “half-stories” were actually facts. Truly amazing when you think about it.

One can only assume that the researchers are aging feminists who are addicted to the outdated and disproven idea that domestic violence is simply dominated by males who batter and women who are victims. We have seen from the Straus article how grossly inaccurate that ideology has been and the extent to which its adherents would go to propagate such mis-information.

I have always thought that science was designed to gather data and then use that data to adjust your theory and ideology based on the new discoveries and information.  It seems to me in this case that rather than science being used to shift ones ideology it is the ideology that is governing science and determining which data should come forward and which not.  This is very dangerous ground for humanitarians and those who want the best for all victims.

In the case of this study it seems likely that the researchers had a pre-conceived idea that girls were victims and boys the perpetrators. When their own data didn’t affirm such stereotypical assumptions they strained to find a way to convert their data into a message that was harmonious with their pre-conceived ideas about violence (girls are worthy victims and boys are perpetrators). This was done by making the repeated claims that girls are more impacted by the violence and because of this the girls needed to be the focus of attention and services. This claim is hollow and anemic. Most any thinking person can look at that idea and see that because one group gets more upset by a problem that in itself should not negate some victims from getting services and attention.

There were so many parts of this study that seemed misandrist to me that I literally could have written another twenty or thirty pages. I will spare the reader such a burden and leave it to others to have a detailed look and make their own comments. Leave it to say that this study is a shining example of the evils of letting an ideology steer research and the resulting public services and the manner in which the general public is brainwashed by hearing only half the story.

I think that this study also shows the dangers involved in allowing ideological zealots a platform to intentionally mold public opinion to their own version of what is real. We need to use caution when accepting studies as being “scientific” and have a much finer net to discover which studies may be biased due to the ideological underpinnings of its authors. Frankly, any high school science student should be able to read this study and and explain clearly how it is lacking. Our media and our governments are sorely failing to do just that.

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
1
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
April 23, 2025
The Anti-Male Propaganda in Netflix's Adolescence

In this discussion, Hannah Spier, Janice Fiamengo, and Tom Golden take a critical look at the anti-male messaging embedded in the Netflix series Adolescence. Together, they unpack the show’s characters, storylines, and the implausibility of the events depicted, highlighting how such narratives reinforce harmful cultural stereotypes about boys and men. The conversation shines a light on how entertainment media can quietly shape public perceptions, often portraying male characters as either predatory, weak, or disposable, while sidelining the real experiences and complexities of young men.

00:59:27
April 07, 2025
Federal "Family Policy": A Story of Mischief

Join Tom Golden, Stephen Baskerville, Shah, and Don Bieniewicz for an eye-opening discussion on U.S. family policy—exploring the many ways it harms men, undermines families, and violates constitutional principles.

With firsthand experience inside the system, Shah and Don offer powerful insights, while Stephen brings over 20 years of research and writing on the subject. The video concludes with a call to action: contact the White House and recommend Stephen Baskerville as the director of ACF and Shah for consideration as the head of OCSS.

Stephen’s Books
Taken Into Custody https://amzn.to/3nGaMh6
The New Politics of Sex https://amzn.to/3DIYjif
Who Lost America: Why the United States Went “Communist“ and what to Do about it https://www.amazon.com/Who-Lost-America-United-Communist/dp/1915755662

Don’s papers:

(1) The model child support guideline that I drafted for the Children's Rights Council is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Donald-Bieniewicz?ev=hdr_xprf

(2) And the ...

00:56:26
March 29, 2025
Regarding Men 24 - Sicko-Therapy

Recorded 2020

Janice Fiamengo, Paul Elam, and Tom discuss the twisted ideas of feminist therapy. If feminists are not admitting that they hate men, what does that do to any form of therapy based on feminist ideas?

Laura Brown http://www.drlaurabrown.com/feminist-therapy/
Psychology Today on Feminist Therapy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/feminist-therapy

00:37:00
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
April 26, 2025
MHD - The Princess Treatment Exposed

I follow MHD on Patreon and enjoy many of his vids. Here’s one of his videos that was also on youtube. See what you think.

Sargon, dancing around the red pill.

A great video on the help for men channel interviewing Michelle Langley. This is the kind of stuff all men need to learn and share great points and great lessons and advice for men and women. Definitely not Gynocyntric or anti man at all!!

May 06, 2025
post photo preview
The Origins of Hatred - Part Two - Feminism



How Feminism Manufactured Fear and Distrust of Men

One of the clearest long-term examples of using fear, blame, victimhood, and resentment as a social tactic is the way feminism — backed by unwavering support from the media and lawmakers — has worked to embed fear, distrust, and blame into the minds of women and girls.

Nearly every major feminist campaign has been built on two themes: blaming men and claiming victimhood. Along the way, women have been encouraged to distrust men, to fear them, and to view their actions through a lens of suspicion.

The success of these campaigns has relied heavily on gynocentrism — a deeply embedded, often invisible bias. Most people don’t even realize they carry it, but it’s there, quietly shaping our instincts. Gynocentrism shows up as an automatic tendency to prioritize the needs, emotions, and concerns of women, while overlooking those of men. Feminists have strategically weaponized this bias, using it to pressure institutions and society into funneling more resources to women. 

In the previous post, The Origins of Hatred, we discussed how hatred often grows out of fear, distrust, resentment, and the belief that something rightfully yours could be stolen. When these emotions are stirred up, the chances of hatred taking root rise dramatically.

We’ve seen the slogans — the t-shirts and mugs that proudly say things like “I bathe in male tears.” That’s not just casual humor; it’s celebrating the pain of men. And when one group openly relishes the suffering of another, that’s a serious warning sign of hatred.

Sometimes, the hatred isn’t even hidden. It was spelled out plainly in a Washington Post article by Walters titled "Why Can't We Hate Men?" No subtle hints, no veiled language — just a blunt statement: we deserve to hate men.

Over the years, there have been plenty of openly misandrist books too, including the infamous S.C.U.M. Manifesto by Valerie Solanas. (S.C.U.M. stands for Society for Cutting Up Men.) Sound like the name of a hate group to you? It should.

It’s not hard to see: some women have been led — even encouraged — to hate men.

Let’s take a closer look at how this has been done, step by step.


Inventing the Patriarchy Monster

 

The first move was to create a villain: Patriarchy. Feminists claimed this invisible, omnipresent system had stolen women’s rights and opportunities for centuries — and that all men were participants. It was portrayed as a global conspiracy designed by men to oppress women.

This narrative cast women as perpetual victims and men as perpetual perpetrators. If women were victims of this monstrous system, it gave them a reason to fear, distrust, and blame men for their problems. Crucially, it wasn’t just a handful of powerful tycoons being blamed — it was every man.

This conditioned women to view men not as allies or protectors, but as thieves of opportunity and freedom. And once fear and blame is planted, distrust follows. Over time, this distrust breeds resentment, and this can inevitably curdle into hatred.


Manufacturing Fear of Men’s Violence

Next, feminism relentlessly exaggerated the threat of male violence. Even though fewer than a half of 1% of men are convicted of violent crimes, men were collectively painted as dangerous.

Campaigns like “Take Back the Night” suggested that men had made public spaces unsafe. Anti-rape crusades pushed slogans like All men are potential rapists. Domestic violence campaigns implied that any woman, at any time, could be in danger from any man — despite data showing domestic violence is most prevalent in lower socio-economic groups and that men are victims too.

The aim was simple: fuel fear and distrust by promoting the idea that all men were potential threats. And history tells us what happens next: fear transforms into resentment, and unchecked resentment leads to hate. The more women were told to see men as unpredictable dangers, the more those emotions hardened.


Demonizing Masculinity Itself

As the fear campaigns intensified, a new weapon emerged: toxic masculinity. Feminists began to redefine traditional masculine traits—such as strength, stoicism, and competitiveness—as inherently harmful. The very qualities that had long been vital for protecting and providing for women and children were suddenly recast as dangerous and pathological.

Imagine the backlash if someone claimed femininity itself was toxic. But the “toxic masculinity” label stuck — widely accepted, even celebrated, in popular culture and media.

What message does this send women? That men, by their very nature, are dangerous. It discourages trust, closeness, and cooperation, and promotes out-group hostility — seeing men as outsiders and threats. Fear escalates, trust deteriorates, and resentment simmers just beneath the surface. Over time, that resentment metastasizes into outright hatred of not just specific men, but masculinity itself.


Reframing Male Help as Oppression


Another tactic was to portray even positive male behavior as suspect. Feminists argued that when men protect or help women, it’s about control and paternalism. Acts of chivalry were repackaged as disguised domination. Gratitude was replaced with skepticism, doubt, and fear.

This seeded doubt in women’s minds: Is his kindness genuine, or does he have an agenda? Over time, this isolated women further and disoriented men who suddenly found their supportive gestures met with suspicion. He found himself living in a world where he simply can't win.

And what follows when goodwill is viewed as manipulation? Fear. Distrust. Resentment. The natural progression plays out yet again: suspicion leads to bitterness, and bitterness makes way for hate.

All the while, traditionally masculine strengths like logic, fairness, and objective reasoning were increasingly dismissed or devalued. In their place, emotional expression and subjective feelings were elevated as the highest forms of truth. Rather than balancing reason and emotion, the cultural shift sidelined men's natural strengths, portraying them as cold, outdated, or even oppressive. The result was a climate where emotional narratives often trumped evidence, and fairness took a backseat to feelings.

Casting Relationships as Power Struggles

Feminists promoted the idea that heterosexual relationships are inherently imbalanced and exploitative. Men, they claimed, were constantly scheming to take women’s resources, power, and autonomy.

This worldview cast suspicion on romantic relationships and encouraged women to view partnerships not as mutual alliances, but as battles for dominance. The feminist cry was all sex is rape!

Once again: fear breeds distrust, which breeds resentment. And when the very idea of love and partnership is painted as a contest of control, hatred isn’t far behind. What should foster connection instead fosters division.


Creating a Media Echo Chamber

The media eagerly amplified these narratives. Stories of men as protectors, supporters, or victims rarely made headlines. Instead, article after article, news segment after news segment, depicted women as victims and men as perpetrators.

This one-sided portrayal conditioned the public to see male violence and male wrongdoing as the norm, while male victimhood was erased. Constant exposure to this selective narrative created a skewed perception of male behavior and fueled generalized fear.

And as with every other step: sustained fear morphs into distrust, distrust into resentment, and resentment into hatred. This is not an accidental outcome — it’s a predictable consequence of systematically vilifying one half of the population.


Spreading the Fear Template Across Issues


Feminism applied its fear-and-blame template to virtually every major social issue, consistently casting men as oppressors and women as victims. This narrative became the default lens through which public policy, media coverage, and cultural norms were shaped.​ Let's have a closer look a some of the issues.

The Domestic Violence Example

Perhaps the clearest example is domestic violence. Feminists claimed men were battering women in alarming numbers, and demanded government action. What they deliberately left out was that men, too, were victims — at comparable rates.

Prominent feminist Ellen Pence, a leader in the domestic violence movement, later admitted:

“In many ways, we turned a blind eye to many women’s use of violence, their drug use and alcoholism, and their often harsh and violent treatment of their own children.”

Yet for years, feminists successfully pushed a one-sided narrative, securing billions in funding for women-only services while erasing male victims.​ Male legislators, eager to prove they weren't the “enemy,” funded a women-only domestic violence industry—one that now commands nearly $5 billion a year in federal and state funding, despite its foundation being built on selective data and misleading claims.​ The result? A culture trained to see men as inherently dangerous and women as always innocent victims.​

And where one group is painted as evil and the other as blameless, fear and distrust fester. Resentment builds. Hate is the inevitable consequence.

Education: Feminists claimed that the patriarchy had systematically cheated girls out of opportunity. Girls were portrayed as emotionally battered by a male-dominated system that ignored their needs. The solution? Re-engineer the educational environment to favor girls—by de-emphasizing competition, downplaying boys’ natural learning styles, and prioritizing emotional safety over academic rigor. The result has been a system where boys now lag behind in graduation rates, college enrollment, and literacy, but no one is rushing to fix it for them.

Reproductive Rights: The conversation was framed as a battle against male control of women’s bodies, summed up by the slogan: “Her body, her choice.” But while women were given full reproductive authority, men were given no rights, no say, and no support. The father's role was reduced to that of a bystander—unless child support was needed. There was no public outcry about this imbalance, only cheers for women's autonomy, and silence about male disenfranchisement.

Healthcare: Feminists claimed women were neglected by a healthcare system designed by and for men. They argued that women were left out of medical research and ​left out of research studies. These claims have since been debunked​. There are eight federal offices for women's health and none for men. Just one of those offices for women got a budget for 2025 for nearly 1.5 billion dollars while men's offices got zero. They have also found that women actually use more healthcare services and live longer than men—but the narrative stuck​, women need and deserve more. Men, meanwhile, still die younger, have fewer resources for gender-specific health issues, and are underrepresented in healthcare outreach. Yet somehow, the blame was again placed on men.

Divorce: Men were portrayed as abusive and emotionally stifling, while women were framed as desperate to escape. No-fault divorce arrived as the silver bullet, allowing women to end marriages unilaterally, often with financial gain and favorable custody arrangements. What kind of contract allows one party to walk away, take the kids, and still profit? It was a seismic power shift that disempowered men—especially fathers—and handed the upper hand to women under the guise of liberation.

Sexual Assault: The narrative became: All men are potential predators. Due process was seen as a barrier to "believing women." The fear-based messaging painted entire groups of men as suspect, regardless of evidence, while encouraging women to view every interaction through the lens of danger.

Pay Gap: Feminists accused men of deliberately underpaying women. Yet Warren Farrell ha​s thoroughly debunked this myth, showing that the so-called “gap” is almost entirely due to life choices—career fields, hours worked, risk tolerance—not discrimination. Still, the blame stuck to men, and the myth continues to be used to justify gender-based policy and hiring practices.

Sexual Harassment: Men were framed as aggressors who silenced and intimidated women in the workplace​. The blanket vilification of men created an atmosphere of suspicion, where normal workplace interactions could be reinterpreted as threats.​ Men’s natural ways of interacting — being competitive, giving blunt feedback, and adopting a “tough it out” mentality — were seen as harmful to women. But instead of encouraging women to adapt to this more demanding environment, the solution was to change the men.

Mansplaining: A new cultural buzzword emerged to shame men for speaking, especially when sharing knowledge. It wasn’t enough to disagree—men were now accused of "stealing women's voices" anytime they offered a perspective.

Manspreading: Even how men sit became political. Men were now “stealing women’s space” by taking up too much room on public transport. Masculine posture was reframed as a public offense.

The Result: A Culture of Fear, Distrust, and Hatred

By repeatedly following the same formula — false accusations, inflated victimhood, vilifying men, and demanding urgent action — feminism has succeeded in making women suspicious, fearful, and distrustful of men.

Women were placed in a difficult bind:

  • If you believe the narrative, you must fear men.

  • If you believe the narrative, you must distrust men.

  • If you believe the narrative, you must resent men.

  • If you don’t believe the narrative, you must not be a “real” woman.

With every new manufactured grievance — from mansplaining to domestic violence — the same template was applied.

But fear and distrust don’t operate in a vacuum. Human psychology makes this clear: when people are taught to fear and distrust a group, and are simultaneously conditioned to see themselves as its perpetual victims, resentment takes root. Over time, that resentment hardens — and turns into hatred.

This is one of the most dangerous psychological dynamics in any society. History shows us that when a group is consistently portrayed as a threat — and held collectively responsible for every grievance — the result is always the same: hostility, dehumanization, and eventually outright hatred.

This relentless cycle of fear and blame hasn’t just fostered distrust — it has built a culture steeped in in-group bias, where one group (women) is seen as morally superior and perpetually victimized, while the other (men) is cast as inherently dangerous and unworthy of empathy.

The inevitable result? A rising hatred of men.
A hatred fueled by distorted narratives, reinforced by media echo chambers, and protected by ideological gatekeepers.

This is how fear was manufactured — how, one lie at a time, an entire culture was led to see men not as allies, protectors, or partners, but as threats. And in the process, feminism didn’t just fracture relationships between men and women — it cultivated an atmosphere where distrust breeds resentment, and resentment curdles into hate.

At every turn, this framework of fear and blame has redefined normal male behavior as oppressive. It has warped public perception, silenced men’s voices, and redirected vast social resources toward problems often exaggerated or misrepresented.

The cost?
A growing cultural divide.
The breakdown of the American family and male female relationships.
And a generation of boys and men taught to feel ashamed of their very nature.

Feminism — with its invented victimhood and relentless blame — has become one of the most deceptive and self-serving movements in American history. It's time we start calling it out. And it’s time we return, slowly but surely, to the truth:

Men are good.

Read full Article
May 03, 2025
post photo preview
Introducing a Custom GPT: Understanding Men and Boys – Healing Insights



Introducing a Custom GPT: Understanding Men and Boys – Healing Insights

I’ve created a custom GPT (a conversational AI built with ChatGPT) designed to offer grounded, respectful insight into the emotional lives of men and boys. It draws exclusively from my three books:

This GPT does not offer advice or therapy. Its purpose is to deepen understanding, not to diagnose, treat, or intervene. It assumes goodwill and sincere curiosity from those using it.

You can use it to explore:

  • How men and boys deal with emotions differently

  • The often-invisible ways they process pain or build closeness

  • Gendered dimensions of healing that often go unspoken or unrecognized

  • Indigenous rituals and how they tell us about men and boys

Click here to use the GPT

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-680ed336677c8191a3527bdf1d4bf17f-understanding-men-and-boys-healing-insights

Ask it a question and see what comes up! Ask it about Michael Jordan, or Eric Clapton and see what it says.

I will be curious to hear your feedback on this. I am planning to build a number of Custom GPT’s like this around men’s issues. Let me know what issues you think should be first!

Read full Article
April 28, 2025
post photo preview
The Origins of Hatred
Part One

 

The Origins of Hatred

Hatred feels like it’s everywhere these days. It’s erupting across countries, communities, and causes — whether it’s resentment toward Whites in South Africa, the relentless fury over Gaza, backlash against anything connected to Tesla, or the media’s obsessive vilification of Donald Trump. Politics, religion, race, climate, abortion — you name it, and someone’s ready to rage about it.

Sure, we’ve seen violent protests before — the Watts riots in ’65, the upheaval after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination in ’68, the Rodney King riots in ’92. But those flashpoints were spread out over decades. Today? Violent protests feel constant, and the anger’s coming from every direction. These aren’t just crowds waving signs; we’re watching groups turn to chaos and destruction, convinced their cause matters so much that violence is not only justified — it’s necessary.

It’s alarming how casually some now treat violence as a political weapon. Smash a Tesla dealership? Fine. Call for the assassination of Elon Musk or Donald Trump? Some won’t even flinch.

And it’s left me wondering: Where does all this hatred come from? Why does it seem worse now? What sparks it — and what keeps it alive?

So, I asked ChatGPT. And what I found was fascinating. The first thing that came up? The evolutionary roots of hatred.

Here’s what it said:

Evolutionary

Origins of Hatred

From an evolutionary standpoint, emotions are not random but serve specific survival functions. Hatred, though often viewed as negative, has likely played a crucial role in human survival. It can be understood as an extreme form of in-group preference and out-group hostility—mechanisms that have historically helped human groups compete for resources and maintain social cohesion.

In-group preference and out-group hostility. Now that starts to connect the dots. In-group preference means you instinctively favor your own group — seeing it as essential to your identity, safety, and survival. Then comes out-group hostility, where anyone outside that circle isn’t just different, but a potential threat. ChatGPT went on:

1. Group Selection and Tribalism

One of the most widely accepted evolutionary explanations for hatred is that it emerged from early human tribalism. Our ancestors lived in small groups where cooperation among members was vital for survival. Those who exhibited strong loyalty to their group and hostility toward outsiders were more likely to protect their resources, defend against threats, and ensure the group's survival. This tendency remains evident today in nationalistic, religious, and ideological divisions.

2. Competition for Resources

Scarcity of resources often leads to intergroup conflict. Evolutionarily, groups that could effectively identify and eliminate threats to their survival had a greater chance of thriving. Hatred provided the psychological fuel for such conflicts, making it easier for individuals to dehumanize their enemies and act aggressively.

Aha! So it turns out the evolution of hatred is deeply rooted in competition between groups for resources. In early human history, survival wasn’t guaranteed — and if your group didn’t outcompete a rival, you might not make it. They could take your food, land, animals… or women.

And yes, there’s plenty of evidence suggesting one primal fear was that rival groups would raid camps and steal women. Why? Because women were valued for their reproductive ability. The more women a group had, the greater its chances of producing offspring and increasing its numbers. Too few, and the group was doomed.

As a result, men were prized for their fierceness — their willingness to fight, protect, and kill if necessary. Some research even suggests the more intruders a man killed, the more desirable he became as a mate within his group. (for details see David Geary’s Male Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences chap 8) Which might help explain why, even today, certain women are inexplicably drawn to violent men, including infamous serial killers behind bars.

What we’re seeing is that hatred didn’t appear out of thin air — it was born out of primal fears: not having enough food, water, shelter, or reproductive partners. And those fears naturally bred suspicion and hostility toward outsiders, who were seen as the problem.

And according to ChatGPT, there’s even more to this story…

3. Survival Mechanism Against Threats

Hatred may have also evolved as a defense mechanism against perceived threats. When early humans encountered dangerous rivals, predators, or hostile groups, a strong aversive reaction would have been advantageous. This ingrained mechanism still influences modern social dynamics, where perceived threats—whether economic, cultural, or political—can trigger deep-seated animosity.

It’s become clear that hatred first evolved as a response to perceived threats — from predators, rival groups, or anyone endangering essential resources and survival. But what about the personal, psychological side of hatred? Why do people harbor hatred even when their survival isn’t on the line?

That’s where the second part of ChatGPT’s explanation comes into play.

Psychological Creation of Hatred

While evolutionary factors set the foundation for hatred, psychological mechanisms shape its expression in individuals. Hatred is rarely innate; rather, it develops through experiences, learned behaviors, and cognitive processes.

1. Socialization and Cultural Influence

Children are not born with hatred; they learn it through socialization. Parents, peers, and societal norms play significant roles in shaping attitudes toward different groups. If a child grows up in an environment where a particular group is demonized, they are more likely to develop hatred toward that group. The media, political rhetoric, and historical narratives further reinforce these beliefs.

Children aren’t born with hatred. It sounds like an obvious statement, but it’s an important one. Hatred isn’t something that naturally exists in a baby or young child — it has to be introduced. For a child to feel hatred, something or someone has to plant that fearful seed.

2. Personal Trauma and Projection

Hatred can also arise from personal experiences. If an individual suffers harm at the hands of a particular person or group, they may generalize that negative experience to all members of that group. This process, known as projection, allows the individual to externalize their pain and blame others for their suffering.

3. Cognitive Biases and Stereotyping

Human cognition is prone to biases that reinforce hatred. The confirmation bias leads people to seek out information that supports their preexisting views, while the out-group homogeneity effect causes individuals to perceive members of an opposing group as more similar than they actually are. These cognitive distortions make it easier to sustain hatred over time.

Conclusion

So where does all this hatred come from? Strip it down, and you’ll find the same thing at its core every time: fear. Fear is the fuel. Without it, the hostility, the out-group aggression, the calls for destruction wouldn’t carry the same weight. It’s fear that ignites those ancient instincts and gives modern hatred its relentless, suffocating power.

And what does that tell us about today’s world? It tells us we’re living in a culture saturated with fear. If someone wanted to fracture a society, to turn one group against another, they wouldn’t need armies or violence at first. They’d just need to instill fear. Fear of losing resources, fear of losing status, fear of “the other.” Feed that fear with a steady stream of distrust, blame, and moral certainty — and you’ve got a society primed for conflict.

Sound familiar? It should.

We’re watching it unfold in real time. The media floods the public square with fear: threats to democracy, creeping totalitarianism, climate catastrophe, pandemic xxx, cultural collapse. But notice what’s absent — no one calls for patience, forgiveness, or mutual understanding. Very few tell both sides of any story. The message is clear: be afraid, stay angry, and pick a side.

And this strategy isn’t new. It’s been building for decades. One of the clearest, most persistent examples is how modern feminism — with the eager backing of media, academia, the judiciary, and legislative power — has relentlessly seeded fear, distrust, and blame into the minds of women and girls. Fear of men. Fear of oppression. Fear of being cheated. Fear of irrelevance. The result? A divided society where mutual respect erodes, and hatred becomes not only acceptable but fashionable — so long as it targets the approved enemy.

 

Understanding the evolutionary and psychological roots of hatred matters. But recognizing how fear is weaponized today is even more urgent. Because hatred isn’t some unstoppable force of nature. It’s a reaction. And like all reactions, it depends on what we choose to feed it.

In part two we will take a look at how feminism has spread fears that fostered the hatred of men.

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