This post is the second in a three-part series that followed How Feminist Researchers Lied. Although these pieces were written some time ago, they remain just as relevant today.

The study examined here focuses on “reproductive coercion” — and it’s a striking example of how researchers can deliberately mislead. Incredibly, it makes the preposterous claim that men are the ones “poking holes in condoms.” Despite its weak foundation, the study received massive coverage in the mainstream media and has undoubtedly shaped public perception, reinforcing yet another false narrative about men.

Read on to see how they managed to spin this.
______________________________________________

 

I was browsing on the web and happened to read an article about a study on “Reproductive Coercion.” As I read it I was amazed at the sorts of statistics that the study was quoting. One article said that 53% of women surveyed had experienced violence in her relationships. “Wow” I thought, thatʼs over half of the respondents. Thatʼs quite a few. I read on and other stats were quoted that were equally shocking. I began to wonder about how they got such alarming statistics.

My interest was stimulated and I started searching for articles on this research. There were plenty. One from Newsweek, one from Science News Daily, one from Medical News Today, one from EScience News, one from the LA Times and others. They all made similar claims about this study and often used the same quotes and the same statistics. I kept looking for more articles thinking that with statistics as strong as these that there must be something unusual here. I wondered if their sample was biased in some way or perhaps the way they had defined their terms had inflated the numbers. About the tenth article I found was one from the college newspaper of the lead researcher in the study. The publication was called “The Aggie” and was the student paper for the University of California, Davis. That article included something that the others had omitted. The Aggie article said that the survey was done on an “impoverished” population of African American and Hispanic females. It went on to say that the study should not be generalized:

“The five clinics surveyed were in impoverished neighborhoods with Latinas and African Americans comprising two-thirds of the respondents.

The results are expected to be applicable to reproductive health clinics in demographically poor areas. Researchers cannot estimate if surveys at private gynecologists would produce similar results.”

Suddenly the results started to make more sense. We know that lower socio-economic levels tend to show much higher levels of interpersonal violence (IPV). One DOJ report shows that women with lower income levels are almost three times more likely to experience relationship violence than those with higher incomes. We know that women in rental housing are also three times more likely to experience IPV than those in homes that they own. By studying a sample that was impoverished it dramatically increased the likelihood of finding higher rates of IPV.

 

Then I started to wonder. How was it that all of the national media articles which had obviously been seen by millions of people had missed the sample being of impoverished African American and Hispanic females? I started to think that the media was simply not doing their homework and that their readers were getting fed misinformation as a result.

I decided at that point to obtain a copy of the study. I went to the online site for the Journal Contraception which had published the original article and purchased a copy. I read it. By the end I was shocked. There was no mention in the journal article of the socio-economic status of the sample that had been surveyed. No mention of whether they were rich or poor. I had to catch myself because I had earlier assumed that it was the media not doing their homework and simply not reading the journal article. But now it was a completely different situation. The information had been omitted from the journal article. How could that be? This was an article that had 7 researchers named as co-authors. It had to have been read and edited over and over again. How could it be that something so basic would have been left out?

I decided to write to the lead researcher Dr Elizabeth Miller. I sent her an email and asked about the sample. I told her that I had read the article in the Aggie that had mentioned that the sample was “impoverished” African American and Hispanic females and I was interested to know if this was correct or if the Aggie had made a mistake. She wrote me back a very pleasant email in several days apologizing for taking so long to get back to me and saying that yes, the Aggie was correct that the sample was largely disadvantaged African American and Hispanic females. I wrote her back very quickly and asked why that information had not been mentioned in the journal article. I also asked if she was concerned about the national media articles that never mentioned the fact that the sample was impoverished and seemed to be erroneously implying that the study could generalize to the population at large. She wrote me back once but has never offered any answers to those questions.

At that point I contacted Gabrielle Grow, the author of the Aggie article and congratulated her on a job well done. I asked her how she had found out about the sample being “impoverished.” She told me that it was just one of the questions that she had asked the researchers in the interview. I wrote her back and congratulated her again and explained to her that all of the national articles including Newsweek, LA Times, Science News Daily, EScience News, Medical News Today and others had all missed that important bit of information. Ms Grow was the only reporter that asked the important question.

But why did the national news media not ask the same question? This is an important question and we really donʼt know the answer at this point. What we do know is the study issued a press release about the research findings and never mentioned the sample being largely a poor population. They also made no mention of the fact which is referenced in their study that this sort of population has higher reports of IPV thus creating inflated responses when compared to the general population. It made no mention that the study should be applicable only to other poor neighborhoods. Reading the press release one might easily assume that the study applied to everyone.

Here are just a few of the points the press release made:

1. Men use coercion and birth control sabotage to cause their partners to become pregnant against their wills.

2. Young women and teenage girls often face efforts by male partners to sabotage their birth control or coerce or pressure them to become pregnant – including by damaging condoms and destroying contraceptives.

3. Fifty-three percent of respondents said they had experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner.

4. Male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners.

With no mention in the press release that the studyʼs sample was largely indigent African American and Hispanic females one could get the impression from reading it that the study might apply to the general population. Even though the researchers when asked by Ms Grow, admitted that the study should only be applied to the poor. One can only assume that the researchers failed not only to mention this important information in the press release but also didnʼt offer this to the media in any of the interviews. Actually there was very little information offered that might have discouraged the media from playing this as a study about men and women in general.

This is obvious when you look at the headlines and quotes from various news articles. Here is a sampling:

NEWSWEEK

“What we’re seeing is that, in the larger scheme of violence against women and girls, it is another way to maintain control,” says Miller.”
“The man is taking away a woman’s power to decide she’s not going to have a child.”

LA Times

“Reproductive coercion is a factor in unintended pregnancies”
“Young women even report that their boyfriends sabotage birth control to get them pregnant.”

ScienceDaily

“Over half the respondents — 53 percent — said they had experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner.”

“The study also highlights the importance of working with young men to prevent both violence against female partners and coercion around pregnancy.”

Physorg

“Approximately one in five young women said they experienced pregnancy coercion”

ESCIENCE NEWS

“Young women and teenage girls often face efforts by male partners to sabotage birth control or coerce pregnancy — including damaging condoms and destroying contraceptives”

INSCIENCES

“This study highlights an under-recognized phenomenon where male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners,” said lead study author Elizabeth Miller, a

Medical News Today

Headline – Physical or Sexual Violence Often Accompanies Reproductive Coercion

End Abuse . org

“It finds that young women and teenage girls often face efforts by male partners to sabotage their birth control or coerce or pressure them to become pregnant – including by damaging condoms and destroying contraceptives.”

What do these quotes and headlines have in common? They all sound as if the study in question applies to the general population of men and women, boys and girls. The circulation of Newsweek is 2.7 million so just from that source alone a great many people have been given the impression that men in general will tend to coerce women in general to get pregnant.

 

The first level is the research paper itself. The Contraception Journal was obviously read by many, especially other researchers. Then the next level is the national media that wrote stories about the study. We saw above some of the sorts of misrepresentations that were common from the national media articles. But things go even further. Once the journal article is published and then the media articles follow there is a third wave that hits: the blogs. When end users hear this sort of thing they take it a step farther. Here are just a few examples of what happens:

Hereʼs a headline from a blog:

Crazy, Condom-Puncturing Control Freaks Are Often Men

So we have gone from omitting the nature of the sample to the printing of articles in the national media that implicate men in general and once this happens the end users at the blogs take that information and exaggerate it much farther. Hereʼs another example:

There is a new study which discusses a horribly prevalent but rarely discussed form of intimate partner violence: reproductive coercion.

So we have gone from low income Black and Hispanic females claiming to be coerced to making global pronouncements about reproductive coercion being “horribly prevalent.” Right. Those crazy condom puncturing control freaks are part of a horribly prevalent pattern.

It doesnʼt take much imagination to see the next step of a dinner table discussion of this issue. The daughter announces at the table that it is men who puncture condoms and force women into pregnancy. Mom tells her that that couldnʼt be and the daughter pulls up a link to the blog and then to the Newsweek article. Dad is still unimpressed until she pulls up a link to the study which partially verifies her false claim. All at the table are convinced now it is the men in general who are coercing women into pregnancy.

This is the way memes get started. A “research” article tells half the story and the partial data is misinterpreted unknowingly by the media who then pass on the half story as truth to unwitting millions who hear the medias version and their claim that it is research driven and the public is sold. It must be true! This is of course what happened with domestic violence. Early feminist researchers only told half the story, that women were victims of domestic violence and men were perpetrators. The media simply passed on the story to millions and the rest is history. We have a general public who is convinced that it is only women who are victims of domestic violence.

The scientific method is very clear. You create a hypothesis and find a way to test it. You then carefully sift though the test data and account for the data that affirms your hypothesis and importantly account for the data that conflicts with your hypothesis. What has happened over and over from feminist researchers is simply ignoring the data that conflicts with your hypothesis (male victims) and focusing solely on that data that confirms your ideology (female victims). Interestingly in this study the researchers failed to ask the subjects if they had also coerced their male partners. They only asked the questions that would provide them with the “acceptable” answers.

In the study examined in this article the researchers seem to have “forgotten” to remind the media of the limitations of their sample. In a similar fashion to the first study, the press release seems to have been used to steer the data. One could assume that leaving out the nature of the sample was an honest mistake. If so, I would have expected Dr Miller to respond to my email asking about the omission of the nature of the sample. But she did not. This leaves us not knowing if the mistake was or was not intentional.

Perhaps we will never know. I know what my guess is. Whatʼs yours?

Men Are Good

The Research https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20227548/

The Double Standard: Why Girls Get Protection and Boys Get Silence

Here is the contradiction at the heart of our culture’s approach to children:

When a stereotype harms girls, we mobilize.
When a stereotype harms boys, we rationalize.

Look again at the math example.
The message girls heard—“girls aren’t good at math”—was subtle and narrow, yet the response was sweeping. Grants, new curricula, teacher training, role-model initiatives, national campaigns. Entire systems shifted to make sure girls never internalized even a hint of inferiority.

Necessary? Yes.
But also revealing.

Because when the stereotypes aimed at boys are far harsher—“toxic,” “oppressor,” “privileged,” “dangerous,” “obsolete”—we do nothing. And this is where gynocentrism comes in.

Gynocentrism isn’t hatred of boys; it’s something quieter and harder to notice:
a cultural reflex that centers girls’ and women’s needs as moral priorities, while treating boys’ and men’s needs as less urgent, less sympathetic, or even suspect.

In a gynocentric culture, protecting girls is not just helpful — it feels virtuous.
And protecting boys often feels unnecessary, or worse, like a challenge to women’s advancement.

So when girls face a stereotype, no matter how small, the cultural machinery activates. When boys face a stereotype that attacks their whole identity, that same machinery goes quiet. Their pain doesn’t register with the same moral weight.

And most people don’t even notice this double standard because gynocentrism operates like the background music of the culture — always there, rarely questioned. It creates an environment where:

• girls’ struggles evoke empathy

• boys’ struggles evoke denial

• girls are seen as vulnerable

• boys are seen as responsible

• girls are lifted

• boys are lectured

This is not because people consciously dislike boys. It’s because we are swimming in a worldview that instinctively prioritizes female well-being.

So girls get interventions, reforms, resources, encouragement, and national concern.
And boys get silence, suspicion, or blame.

This is the unexamined engine driving the contradictions we see today. Until we name gynocentrism, we can’t make sense of why our culture protects one group’s identity and ignores the slow erosion of the other’s.

And that brings us to the most important question: What do we owe our boys in a culture that has forgotten how to see them?

What Our Culture Owes Its Boys

If Jane Elliott’s classroom taught us anything, it’s that children rise or fall based on the signals adults send. And right now, the signals sent to boys are filtered through a culture deeply shaped by gynocentrism — a once-natural instinct to protect women and children that, over the last fifty years, has been weaponized by modern feminism. What began as empathy has hardened into ideology — a cultural reflex that protects girls first, crowns them as the default victims, and brands boys as the problem, undeserving of equal compassion.

But boys are not just absorbing it.
They are being shaped by it.

If stereotype threat can affect a girl’s math performance, imagine the impact of a full cultural narrative that tells boys their very nature is worrisome. Imagine a boy growing up in a world where girls are framed as precious and in need of uplift, while boys are framed as problematic and in need of correction.

That’s not equality — it’s a gross misunderstanding of human development.

Because boys, like girls, are tender creatures. They feel disapproval deeply. They respond to expectations with the same sensitivity Jane Elliott witnessed in her classroom. A culture cannot shame half its children and expect them to grow into confident, healthy adults.

And yet gynocentrism blinds us to this. It tells us that helping girls is virtuous, but helping boys is unnecessary—or even suspect. It hides boys’ suffering behind the old myth that they’ll “be fine.” It excuses the neglect of their emotional lives. It makes male pain invisible and male discouragement seem normal.

Some of this bias is a natural product of our evolutionary history—a survival instinct to protect women and children first. But over the last fifty years, that instinct has been weaponized by modern feminism into an extreme moral hierarchy: one that automatically places female well-being above male well-being, and often demonizes men and boys in the process.

But boys are not fine under this shadow. They are quietly collapsing beneath messages no child should have to carry.

It’s time to remove the blindfold.

We owe boys the same compassion we give girls—not less, not someday, but the same.

We owe them:

• a sense of belonging,

• an affirmation of their goodness,

• environments that honor their strengths,

• teachers trained in non-feminist and authentic male psychology,

• and a culture willing to say openly: Boys matter.

The world can support both girls and boys. This is not a zero-sum game. But it requires us to step outside the gynocentric reflex and see our sons clearly again.

Because if a culture cannot love its boys, it cannot love its future.

Men are good, as are you. And so are our boys.

This post is part of an ongoing series originally published around 2010, examining the misandry embedded in mental health research. It’s the first of three research projects covered in that series. This one looks at a report from Great Britain’s NSPCC on teen violence — and it’s astonishingly misandrist. It’s worth reading just to see how deftly they twist language to push their narrative. I’ve included links at the end, along with images of media articles that dutifully echoed their claims. It’s remarkable how easily the media amplifies these lies and half-truths — and has been doing so for years. The remaining two posts in the series will be published over the next two Saturdays.
— Tom

Teen Violence — When Ideology Trumps Data

The first project we’ll look at is a study from Great Britain on teen relationship violence. The research included both a written survey and in-depth interviews with selected teens. The survey results were clear: both boys and girls experienced relationship violence.

Yet, the public ad campaign that followed told a very different story. It focused entirely on helping girls as victims and portrayed boys only as perpetrators. This stunning disregard for male victims — and for the girls identified as perpetrators — stood in sharp contrast to the study’s own data. Those numbers showed that many boys were victims of teen relationship violence, and that girls, too, could be perpetrators.

Let’s start at the beginning — with how this issue first caught my attention.

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:

• A new government campaign launched today urges teenage boys not to abuse their girlfriends.

• TV, radio, internet, and poster ads will target boys aged 13 to 18, aiming to show the consequences of abusive relationships.

• Officials describe it as part of a broader effort to reduce domestic violence against women and younger girls.'

The campaign was inspired by research published last year by the NSPCC, which reported that:

• One in four teenage girls said they had been physically abused by a boyfriend.

• One in six said they had been pressured into sex.

• One in three said they had gone further sexually than they wanted to.

I was a bit taken aback by the article, especially given the recent research on teen relationship violence showing that it tends to be fairly symmetrical — with both boys and girls acting as perpetrators and victims. Yet this article presented a very different picture. It assumed from the outset that girls were the primary victims and boys the primary perpetrators, reflecting an outdated stereotype about domestic violence.

That disconnect made me wonder what was really going on. I read several more articles about the ad campaign mentioned in the piece, and was surprised — even shocked — to find that the campaign’s entire focus was on helping girls while “teaching” boys not to abuse their girlfriends.

Each of these articles cited the same research as the basis for the campaign. So I decided to go straight to the source and see what the original study actually 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 findings from the full report. It’s clear that the survey showed teen relationship violence was not gender-based — both boys and girls were represented among the victims and perpetrators. However, after reading both the full report and the executive summary, I noticed a striking difference. The full report included data showing boys as victims and girls as perpetrators, but the executive summary contained far less information about male victims and female perpetrators. In fact, the executive summary seemed to focus almost entirely on female victims and male perpetrators.

I began to wonder how such a shift could occur. The original study had shown boys as victims — not as frequently as girls, but still in significant numbers. Boys accounted for roughly 25–42% of victims, certainly not the majority, but far too many to ignore. Yet ignore them they did.

The NSPCC introduced this research to the public through a press release, and once again, we can see the same pattern — a steady move away from acknowledging boys. What began as an apparently balanced investigation into teen relationship violence in the full report became less so in the executive summary, and by the time it reached the press release, the focus had shifted almost entirely to girls. Here’s the opening of that release. Note the “girls only” framing in both the headline and the opening 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
Third of teenage girls forced into sex,
NSPCC survey finds
 1 in 3 Teenage Girls Tell of Sexual Abuse by Their Boyfriends
  
Teen Girls Abused by Boyfriends Warns NSPCC 


 

Almost every headline I found focused on girls as victims. Not one centered on boys. The articles occasionally mentioned that boys could also be vulnerable, but the main narrative was always about girls’ vulnerability and victimhood.

The ad campaign represented the real-world application of this research — TV, radio, internet, and poster ads aimed at changing teen relationship behaviors. It marked the point where theory ended and where public messaging — and taxpayer funding — began.

Inexplicably, the campaign’s focus was entirely on girls as victims of relationship violence, while boys were portrayed as the problem and instructed not to abuse their girlfriends. Somehow, the original research had shown that both boys and girls experienced relationship violence, yet by the time the findings reached the media — and then the public through the ad campaign — the data on male victims had all but disappeared.

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.

According to the survey, boys made up between 34% and 42% of the victims. The full report stated this clearly in the data. Yet, as the findings moved from the full report to the executive summary and then to the press release, boys seemed to vanish. Why could that be?

The researchers never directly explained this omission, but reading between the lines, two possible reasons emerge.

The first is that the survey results suggested girls were more “impacted” by relationship violence than boys. One question on the survey asked about emotional reactions to the violence. Girls were far more likely to select responses indicating they felt scared, upset, or humiliated. Boys, on the other hand, were more likely to report feeling angry, annoyed, or unaffected.

The researchers appear to have interpreted these emotional differences to mean that girls suffered more deeply from relationship violence — and therefore should be the primary focus of attention and services. This assumption is implied in several places throughout the full report. Here’s one example:

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.

 

What exactly does “professional responses to this issue” mean? The authors never explain, but it seems reasonable to assume they’re suggesting that girls should receive more attention and services because they were more emotionally affected by the violence. Given that the report’s recommendations focus almost exclusively on girls while ignoring the needs of boys, this interpretation seems well-founded — though I’d be happy to be corrected if that assumption is wrong.

The researchers appear willing to overlook their own substantial evidence that boys were also victims of relationship violence — simply because girls reported stronger emotional reactions. Here’s another example:

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.

It’s important to remember that the interview data quoted above — which we’ll examine in more detail later — included only 62 hand-selected girls and 29 similarly chosen boys. Notably, only one of those 29 boys was a victim of non-reciprocal violence. That makes it highly questionable to draw broad conclusions from such a small and uneven sample, especially when the survey itself included over 1,300 teens.

Also worth noting is the phrase “the wider context in which teenage partner violence needs to be viewed.” We can reasonably assume the researchers are again implying that girls should receive priority in services and support. What’s clear, however, is that the data on violence against boys is ignored — both in the recommendation sections and in the resulting ad campaign. The following quote offers further insight into the researchers’ perspective:

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

The researchers noted that boys and girls gave markedly different responses when asked how the violence had affected them. However, they didn’t provide the raw data — no breakdown of how many boys or girls chose each option — only a summary stating that girls were much more “impacted.”

There are good reasons for this difference. The question itself was flawed — practically designed to produce a gender gap. Boys and girls are socialized, and often biologically inclined, to respond to emotional threat differently. The creators of this survey question seemed unaware of boys’ deep-seated reluctance to show vulnerability or dependence — a reflection of their hierarchical nature and their drive for independence.

For a boy to check boxes like “scared/frightened,” “humiliated,” or “upset/unhappy” would mean admitting weakness, something most boys instinctively avoid. Instead, they are far more likely to select “angry/annoyed” or even “no effect” to maintain an image of strength. As Warren Farrell aptly said, “The weakness of men is the facade of strength; the strength of women is the facade of weakness.” Boys and men are far more likely to choose responses that convey control and toughness.

If this is true, then boys’ responses in the survey may not accurately reflect their true emotional impact. It’s entirely possible that those who checked “no effect” were just as hurt or disturbed as their female counterparts. With questions framed this way, we’re left not knowing the real story. Basing future services on such data would be risky — and likely lead to deeply flawed conclusions.

Consider this: would the researchers dismiss a rape victim who said she felt “no impact” and decide she didn’t need support? Of course not. Would clinicians ignore domestic violence victims who claimed they were unaffected? Hardly. So why dismiss the pain of boys simply because they reported fewer signs of distress on a survey? Emotional reactions vary widely from person to person, and not showing immediate or visible distress doesn’t mean the trauma isn’t real.

Having worked with trauma victims for many years, I know that emotional impact often emerges slowly — sometimes months or even years after the event. To deny services based on someone’s initial emotional response, or apparent lack thereof, is one of the most misguided ideas imaginable. And to deny those services to an entire group — in this case, boys — on that basis isn’t just poor reasoning. It’s prejudice, plain and simple.

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 addressing boys’ actual experiences of violence, the researchers focused on whether the boys could “give voice” to the negative effects of their partners’ aggression. This seems like a weak attempt to suggest that boys were able to articulate their experiences — and therefore must not have been “held back” by traditional masculinity from expressing vulnerability. The unspoken implication is that because boys could talk about their victimization, they must not have been deeply affected by it. In other words, it didn’t really matter for them — whereas for girls, it did.

This framing distracts from the central reality: the boys were victims of violence. Reading the researchers’ words makes it clear how differently boys were treated in this study. Their pain was minimized and rationalized away, reduced to the notion that they simply weren’t as impacted. The underlying message was that yes, boys experience violence from their female partners, but they don’t suffer from it in the same way.

That conclusion runs counter to everything we know about male psychology. It’s well established that men and boys often minimize their pain, hide their injuries, and strive to maintain an appearance of independence. This doesn’t mean they’re unaffected — it means they’re reluctant to show it. Precisely because of this tendency, we need a different approach when addressing victimization among boys.

Unfortunately, this study chose another route: it largely ignored boys’ pain and focused its empathy and attention almost exclusively on girls.

 

Messing Around

The quote above states that “boys minimised their own use of violence as ‘messing around.’” According to the full report, boys described their behavior this way 56% of the time. This finding is later cited in the recommendations section as justification for teaching boys to recognize and take responsibility for their violence. (See below.)

But what about the girls? You might assume that since boys were singled out for this attitude, girls must have responded differently. Not so — at least not in the curious, upside-down logic of this study. By the researchers’ own data, girls described their own violence as “messing around” 43% of the time — only 13 percentage points less than the boys.

Given that both sexes minimized their aggression in similar ways, it would make sense that both boys and girls should be encouraged to recognize and take responsibility for their actions. Yet the recommendations focus solely on boys. That’s not sound reasoning — it’s bias. Specifically, 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 against the boys.

The researchers went a step farther than just recommending that girls victimization 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 boys’ supposed insensitivity to the violence done to them makes them less sensitive to the violence they might commit. I find that hard to believe — especially considering that nearly every boy grows up hearing, over and over, that he must never hit a girl.

Let’s apply the same reasoning to girls. According to the survey, girls reported being far more emotionally affected by relationship violence than boys. Yet those same girls also admitted to using violence three times more often than boys did. If we follow the researchers’ logic, this would suggest that girls are well aware of how hurtful violence can be — and still choose to use it far more frequently. That hardly paints them in a positive light, does it?

The researchers conclude:

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

That sums it up rather neatly — and disturbingly.

Boys are More Violent? When the Subjective Trumps the Objective

While the survey was supposed to be the main source of data, the researchers seemed to place far more weight on the subjective material gathered through interviews. The full report’s survey data clearly showed that girls were three times more likely to report using violence in relationships. Yet, somehow, the researchers claim there was “a clear consensus” among the girls that boys were more physically violent toward their partners than girls were.

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 excerpt from page 94 of the full report summarizes the researchers’ evaluation of the girls’ interviews. The most striking aspect is the sharp contradiction between the survey data and the interview findings. The survey clearly showed that girls were three to six times more likely than boys to report being violent in relationships. Yet the subjective data from the interviews claimed that there was a “common understanding regarding the gendered nature of physical violence” — that “almost all girls” believed “boys used physical violence in relationships more often than girls.”

That’s a major discrepancy. One half of the study shows girls admitting to much higher rates of violence, while the other half asserts that boys are the primary aggressors. Such a contradiction demands an explanation, but the report offers little. The closest the researchers come is to suggest that girls’ higher rates of reported violence were due to acts of self-defense — an all-too-familiar claim.

However, the numbers tell a different story. According to the data, 25% of girls and 8% of boys reported being violent in relationships. When we subtract the portion attributed to self-defense — 44% for girls and 30% for boys — we find that 14% of girls and 5.6% of boys used violence for reasons other than self-defense. That means girls were nearly three times more likely than boys to commit non–self-defense violence.

This difference is substantial and should have been a central point in the report. Instead, it was ignored. The researchers’ conclusion — that girls viewed boys as more violent and therefore girls need services while boys need behavior correction — is baffling. It defies their own data and reveals a clear bias. In short, this isn’t just poor analysis. It’s misandry disguised as research.

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 began examining this survey, I emailed the NSPCC to request copies of the original questionnaire and the vignettes used in the study. To their credit, they kindly sent both. I had suspected that the vignettes would be biased toward portraying girls as victims — and I wasn’t disappointed.

Of the five vignettes, most centered on boys’ possessiveness, shouting, name-calling, violence, or sexual pressuring. Only one story depicted a girl as the perpetrator, and even then, her behavior was relatively mild: she and her friends stole a boy’s cell phone, made unkind comments, and the next day apologized. In contrast, the other four stories featured boys engaging in clearly abusive or coercive behavior, including physical aggression and unwanted sexual advances. In one case, a girl used violence — but only in self-defense.

To the researchers’ credit, the first three vignettes included a follow-up question asking whether similar behavior might also occur with the opposite sex. But inexplicably, that question was omitted from the final two vignettes — the ones dealing with sexual pressure. This omission is telling. It suggests a possible ideological bias that prevented the researchers from viewing boys as potential sexual victims or girls as possible perpetrators. This is especially puzzling since the full report’s own data showed that many girls freely admitted to sexually pressuring their boyfriends. So why exclude the question in the interview phase?

Imagine if the situation were reversed — if 80% of the perpetrators in the vignettes had been female, and the only male perpetrator had merely stolen a cell phone and apologized. There would no doubt be loud outcries about bias, marginalization, and the lack of inclusivity — and rightly so. Yet this imbalance seems to have gone unnoticed. These vignettes marginalized the boys in the study, likely leaving them feeling misunderstood and excluded, since their experiences were neither portrayed nor acknowledged.

It wouldn’t have been difficult to design a more balanced approach. The researchers could have kept the same five stories but reversed the genders for half the participants — telling the same scenarios from both male and female perspectives. That small change alone would have ensured that both boys and girls saw their realities reflected. Alternatively, they could have used gender-neutral names for all participants, leaving the sex of the offender and victim unspecified, or created six vignettes — three with male perpetrators and three with female perpetrators — each covering different types of violence.

Any of these approaches would have been far superior to what was used.

The fact that four out of five vignettes portrayed girls primarily as victims and boys as perpetrators — and that any mention of girls as sexual aggressors was entirely absent — is further evidence of ideological bias. This project clearly reflects a worldview that insists on seeing women and girls as victims and men and boys as oppressors. Allowing such bias to persist does a disservice to everyone. It fails our boys by denying their experiences — and fails our girls by teaching them a distorted view of reality. If this kind of bias is allowed to continue in the social sciences, the credibility of the field itself is at risk.

 

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 victimization 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’ minimization of their own use of violence – by dismissing it as “messing around” and justifications based on mutual aggression – needs to be challenged.

The researchers conclude by emphasizing that the focus should be on boys — specifically, their use of violence and their tendency to minimize it, as discussed earlier.

I find this paragraph deliberately vague. My guess is that the ambiguity is intentional. They can’t quite say what they mean — that girls are seen as worthy victims and boys are not — because putting that bias into words would make it too obvious. Vagueness, then, becomes a safer strategy: it conceals the prejudice while still advancing it. What’s clear after reading is that, for whatever reason, girls are portrayed as deserving the lion’s share of help and services, while boys are told to “shape up.”

Is Ideology Driving the Research?

Viewed purely from a marketing standpoint, these researchers achieved something remarkable. They managed to produce a document labeled as a “study,” gather objective data, then draw conclusions that contradicted their own findings — and still have those conclusions echoed across major media outlets. The result: millions of people were presented with half-truths packaged as scientific fact. That’s quite an accomplishment, if one’s goal is persuasion rather than truth.

It’s hard to escape the impression that the researchers are clinging to a dated feminist narrative — one that insists domestic violence is a story of male perpetrators and female victims. Yet as Murray Straus and many others have shown, that model has long been disproven. The persistence of this bias shows how far some are willing to go to preserve a comforting ideology rather than face complex realities.

Science, at its best, collects data and adjusts theory based on what is discovered. But in this case, ideology appears to be steering the science. The researchers seem to have decided in advance that girls were the victims and boys the aggressors. When their data failed to confirm that assumption, they reinterpreted it to fit the narrative. Their central claim — that girls should be the focus of attention because they are “more impacted” — is a hollow one. Emotional distress does not determine moral worth or entitlement to support. No ethical researcher would argue that some victims deserve less services simply because they express less visible pain.

Many parts of this study struck me as blatantly misandrist — so much so that I could easily write another twenty or thirty pages dissecting them. I’ll spare the reader that, but suffice it to say this study stands as a cautionary example of what happens when ideology guides research, shapes public policy, and filters what the public is told.

This is precisely the danger of allowing ideological zealots to shape public opinion under the banner of “science.” We need to be far more discerning about what qualifies as legitimate research, and far quicker to expose studies compromised by bias. Any high school science student could point out the flaws in this one — yet our media and governments either can’t, or won’t. That failure has consequences for everyone who depends on honest science, balanced reporting, and fair treatment of all victims.

Men Are Good.

 

____________________________

Link to the full study https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265245739_Partner_Exploitation_and_Violence_in_Teenage_Intimate_Relationships

Some old news stories that show how they hyped the narrative:

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6524.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8230844.stm

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/sep/01/teenage-sexual-abuse-nspcc-report

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/third-of-teenage-girls-suffer-abuse-from-boyfriends-1779988.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210375/One-teenage-girls-physically-abused-boyfriend.html

Here’s a partial screen shot of the press release. The links for both the executive summary and the press release are now gone.