Science or Spin? Testosterone, Masculinity, or the Last Gasp of Woke

This post is a story by Moiret Allegiere about about awakening to manhood.

 

The boy, sweating, stood silent halfway up the hill. Above, in the blue skies, the sun shone brightly. Warm. Late spring. A slight breeze – quite welcome, thought the boy – broke the stillness of the air.

The boy looked out upon the seemingly endless fields below. Ancient fields, a small portion of which were his and his was also the grass which he had just cut by the sweat of his brow and his scythe and nothing more.

The boy wiped the sweat from his eyes with the palm of his left hand. His right hand, the dominant one, hung limply to the side of his body, swaying. His muscles ached. He thought it more than he felt it. Years of toil had learned him to expect as much. The grass cut then was not his grass, yet the work and the toil and the sweat and the blood belonged to him and him alone. And the very same work and toil and sweat and blood had taught him that his right arm, when not in use, must be loose and limp and tender. As if not to spoil the meat or blood or strength within, but tenderize it, preserve it and conserve it.

Because harder times had been before and harder times would come once more. All things must be conserved and saved so as not to face that snarling beast again, having spoilt or spent knife and rifle both.

“The great divide”, thought the boy. 70/30, with the harder times bearing the brunt of the thing thus split. A beast of burden led with a thin string of silver across a rickety bridge. The boy knew this. The father of the boy taught him this. The boy was five and was watching his father cut the grass and dry it and turn it into food for the sheep. The man always saved some.

Rather would he see his sheep 30 percent starved than for them not to eat at all. So he said. He never strayed. His sheep were always well fed, and his children and his wife as well. The man never strayed. A few of his children had strayed already, yet they strayed only from his path onto their own path as had he when once he grew from boy to man. All was as it should be.

The boy stood there still, and he looked at his fields and then towards the lush green of the plants growing there which he himself placed there for food, and then towards his house which he had built upon the plot of land his father gave to him. A house in which a woman and a baby also lived and breathed and ate and slept.

The boy sighed.

He looked at his watch. The time was where it should be. He stood and he looked some more. He looked at his father’s house.

Still well-kept and maintained and nurtured and loved from seed to harvest.

Beside him now, and quite suddenly, his father stood. Quiet, perhaps, as is his wont, yet lively still, far from dead, merely crippled by arthritis and now incapable of tending to all that which he once tended to.

The boy gave the man a nod, and he smiled. The father stood and he looked. Then he smiled. And they looked both upon the son’s work and the son’s world, neither saying a word because no words were needed. Some time passed. Still was the air and the time was where it should be still. The man gestured with his arm.

“Sit down, son,” he said.

The boy sat down. His father stood there, smiling.

“How’s the baby?” He asked. He had always been a kind man, yet never before as kind as just now.

The boy thought.

“Growing, crying and shitting.”

The older of the two grinned and then he laughed, heartily, and his mood changed abruptly, as if suddenly remembering something long forgotten. He paused and turned to the boy. He looked at his son’s face. Still young and handsome and maintained and nurtured and loved from seed to harvest. And in his son’s face he saw at once his own face as once it was in younger years.

“All is as it should be then?”

“Yes,” the boy said.

“Yes,” said the man.

The older of the two went quiet for a bit, fumbling in his backpack which he always carried with him. The fumbling went on for a little longer than it should, thought both boy and man. The man found what he was looking for. The man was always prepared and the man never strayed, not now and not ever.

He pulled out a beer, and then he pulled out another. Piss-warm now, perhaps, yet it was still beer and still the time was right where it should be.

The son sighed and he smiled as his father opened a beer and handed it to him, saying nothing. There they were. The boy sitting and the man standing. They stood and sat and they looked at what was theirs and theirs alone, and they drank from their beers. Then looked and drank some more. Some time passed just as time does and they stood and sat as if all that was there or anywhere was them and them alone. The older of the two then put his hand upon the shoulder of the younger, and, smiling warmly, he nodded as if to say goodbye even when his lips and his mouth and his mind and his reason said “See you later, son”. He turned and walked away, going home.

The boy sat and he looked some more upon all that was there that was his and his alone. And he sighed and he smiled and he laughed and then he made to leave.

The man got to his feet and the man turned and walked away, going back home following behind the older man, too far behind to catch up yet close enough to never stray.

All we hear about these days is a dangerous manosphere that is threatening our young men. Actually the manosphere is a fairly small and widely varied group of male-oriented communities that has been billed as a huge threat. All the while there is something much larger and much more dangerous that is surrounding both the manosphere and our culture. It is embedded in all that we do, I call it the Femosphere. This huge complex contains, academia, education, advocacy organizations, legislatures, government agencies, entertainment, the courts and of course, the media all working together to create and maintain a gynocentric narrative that impacts everyone.

This is the mammoth sphere through which feminist and gynocentric ideas are created, validated, circulated and converted into public policy. It is the invisible system that makes feminist claims seem unquestionably true. This goes on day in and day out and is a huge and destructive machine that no one sees. No one identifies it as ideological or biased in any way. It masquerades as the status quo. If there is a sphere that is dangerous, it is surely the femosphere.

Here’s how it works. A new slogan or concept is created in academia or feminist advocacy and then reinforced by both. The feminist advocates promote it. Journalists print it. The public reads it. Educators teach it. The public learns it. Before you know it, government agencies are incorporating it into trainings and reports. Then the legislators push it into policy and law and the courts follow along using the same ideas that prompted the policies and laws. Unprecedented teamwork, and no one sees it.

Take coercive control as a​n example. The term was first used by domestic violence advocates who described abuse as an ongoing pattern of control rather than a series of isolated violent acts. Evan Stark pulled these ideas together into a formal theory of coercive control in his book “Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (2007)“. (The title states clearly that this was not a gender-neutral theory: men were the oppressors and women were their victims.) Then the feminist advocates promoted it, journalists spread the word, educators and government agencies taught it, and police and courts were trained to use it. Eventually the legislators turned it into law. Hey Presto! The idea of male dominance and men’s violence becomes the default,

There are plenty of other examples like hegemonic masculinity or intersectionality. These all have different paths through the femosphere pipeline but the end product is the same. The specific ideas about male dominance travel from idea to law or common knowledge. The process is similar, an idea about power and male dominance begins in academia or advocacy, moves through the institutions, and eventually gains real social, political and sometimes legal power.

Here’s the tricky part. Each of these groups starts to quote the other groups as proof to the veracity of the original idea. Journalists cite the academics and advocates cite the journalists. Politicians cite both. Then the researchers come along and “study” the reality that has just been created out of thin air and prove it. Then the public hears from these many sources and voila, what started as a theory becomes an accepted reality. Advocacy becomes fact. The public nods unknowingly in agreement.

The manosphere is open season for criticism, targeting, restrictions, and containment. The femosphere is protected by a gynocentric ban on any criticism or even a negative idea in their direction. To expose who has the power just look for who cannot be criticized. That would clearly be the femosphere, women and feminism. In fact, the manosphere is the first public criticism of the femosphere and the response is predictable: Shame it, blame it, and call it pure misogyny. Don’t argue the ideas, attack personally.

This is what we have had for the last 50 years. A slow gynocentric building of a new reality. And what has been the result? Women have been inflated and men have been equally deflated. Ask just about any woman about the last 50 years and she will tell you it is progress. But has it truly been progress—or has it been a one-way transfer of concern, opportunity, and power to women, without any corresponding transfer of responsibility?

And now it is basically impossible to see.

The next time you hear someone complain about the manosphere, ask them when they will be complaining about the real problem, the femosphere.

Men Are Good.

I recently came across an article with a rather alarming headline:

“Nearly One in Five Australian Men Say Violence Against Feminism Is Legitimate, Study Finds.”

That certainly got my attention. Nearly 20 percent of Australian men think violence against feminism is legitimate? That’s a lot of men. So I decided to look at the study. I’m glad I did.

The research comes from the University of Melbourne and was published in 2024. The researchers surveyed 1,020 Australians about misogyny, racism, and violent extremism. The 19.4 percent figure is real. But when you look at the question that produced it, things start getting interesting.

The men weren’t asked:

“Do you believe violence against feminists is legitimate?”

They weren’t asked:

“Is it acceptable to physically attack feminists?”

They were given this statement:

“Feminism is damaging to our society and should be resisted by force if necessary.”

That is what produced the 19.4 percent. Do you see the problem? There are several things going on in that one sentence. First, it says feminism is damaging to society. That’s one question all by itself. Then it says feminism should be resisted “by force.” What does force mean? Physical violence? Political force? Legal force? Economic force? Civil disobedience? We don’t know. And then come the two little words that really caught my attention:

“if necessary.”

What does that mean? Those words ask the respondent to imagine circumstances in which force might become necessary. Most people believe there are circumstances in which force is justified. Self-defense is an obvious example. Protecting another person is another. Resisting tyranny might be another. But none of that is explored. Instead, agreement with this rather strange question eventually becomes:

“Nearly One in Five Australian Men Say Violence Against Feminism Is Legitimate.”

That’s quite a journey.

​Here’s a screenshot of the questions they used to determine if violent extremism existed and to what degree. Can you find the question(s) that did not have the word violence in any form in them? Can you find the question(s) that concluded by saying “if necessary?” They abbreviate violent extremism with “VE.” Here’s a clue….look at the last question very carefully and then compare.

Where’s Waldo?

 

Can you see how they have sculpted things? Which got the highest scores? The one without the word violence and justified by saying “when necessary.” Then you make claims, even in your own paper, the same one that relied on that questionable question that​:

 

Now they call it anti-feminist violent extremism! No need to ask the question with the word violence in it? Nope.

Then I Looked at the Other Questions

This is where things became even more interesting. The study includes a table with the heading:“Frequency of Respondents Agreeing with Permissibility of Violence Against Women.”

Okay. If we are going to measure whether people think violence against women is permissible, what should we ask? Fortunately, the researchers give us a couple of good examples. One question says:

“A male partner would be entitled to use physical force (pushing, slapping, punching, kicking, choking) if his female partner argues with him, or refuses to obey him.”

That’s pretty clear. No ambiguity there. Do you think a man is entitled to push, slap, punch, kick, or choke his female partner because she argues with him or refuses to obey him? 5.5 percent of the men agreed. Another question asks whether a father or brother is entitled to use physical force or violence against a daughter or sister for bringing dishonor on the family. Again, very clear. 4.5 percent of the men agreed. Those are troubling numbers. I would prefer they were zero. But notice what happens when the researchers ask clear questions about whether violence against women is actually permissible. We get 5.5 percent. We get 4.5 percent. Now look at some of the questions that produced the big numbers.

Is This Really a Question About Violence?

Here’s one:

“Women often make sexual assault accusations as a way of getting back at men.”

48.6 percent of the men agreed. Nearly half! But wait a minute. What does that question have to do with whether violence against women is permissible? A man could believe that false sexual assault accusations are common and at the same time believe that violence against women is absolutely wrong. Whether his belief about false accusations is correct is another question. We can investigate that. But believing something about false accusations does not mean you approve of violence. Here’s another:

“Women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case.”

51.2 percent of the men agreed. There’s the biggest number on the page. But again, where is the approval of violence? This is a question about whether women sometimes make false or exaggerated claims during custody disputes. You can think that belief is right. You can think it’s wrong. But it still isn’t a question about whether hitting women is okay. Yet there it sits under the heading:

“Permissibility of Violence Against Women.”

How did we get there?

Another Curious Question

Then there is this one:“Sometimes a woman can make a man so angry that he hits her when he didn’t mean to.”

33.5 percent of men agreed. But what exactly are they agreeing with? That hitting her is justified? The question doesn’t say that. It asks whether someone can become so angry that he does something he hadn’t intended to do. Surely there is a difference between explaining how something happened and saying that it was acceptable. Interestingly, 21.7 percent of women agreed with this statement too. Are those women endorsing violence against women? Maybe. But the question doesn’t tell us. That’s the problem.

Look at the Pattern

This is what really struck me. The questions that explicitly ask whether men are entitled to physically assault women produce relatively low numbers: 5.5 percent. 4.5 percent. But questions about false accusations, custody battles, anger, and responsibility produce numbers of: 33 percent. 37 percent. 49 percent. 51 percent. And which numbers do you suppose make the story look more frightening? This is where I started thinking about the phrase sculpting the narrative. You begin with the raw material—the answers people actually gave. Then you decide what those answers mean. A belief that women sometimes make retaliatory sexual assault accusations becomes an attitude about violence against women. A belief that domestic violence allegations may be exaggerated during custody battles becomes an attitude about violence against women. Agreement that feminism should be resisted “by force if necessary” becomes support for violent anti-feminist extremism. And eventually a newspaper headline tells us: Nearly one in five Australian men says violence against feminism is legitimate. But that isn’t what the men were asked.

Why Does This Matter?

Violence against women is a serious subject. That’s exactly why the research needs to be good. If you want to know whether men approve of violence against women, ask them. The researchers clearly knew how to do this. Their own questionnaire proves it. Ask: Is a man entitled to hit a woman under these circumstances? They did. And they got 5.5 percent. Ask: Is a father or brother entitled to use violence against a daughter or sister under these circumstances? They did. And they got 4.5 percent. Those are legitimate findings. But if you ask men whether women make false accusations and then treat their answers as evidence of the permissibility of violence against women, you are measuring something else. And shouldn’t PhD researchers know the difference?

​I am aware that this is tough to believe so here is a screen shot from the research that shows the questions and the responses. Note that their highest responses were the ones that had little to do with violence against women.

 

​
From Survey Answer to Extremism

There is another step in all of this that bothers me. The study doesn’t stop with attitudes toward women. It connects these attitudes with violent extremism. The researchers report that anti-feminist violent extremism was the most prevalent form of violent extremism they measured. That sounds frightening. But remember the question that helped establish it:

“Feminism is damaging to our society and should be resisted by force if necessary.”

That’s it. Imagine changing the subject: “Racism is damaging to our society and should be resisted by force if necessary.” How many people would agree? Probably quite a few. Would we then conclude that those people support violent extremism? What about: “Nazism is damaging to our society and should be resisted by force if necessary.” Would agreement make you a violent extremist? Suddenly the problem becomes easier to see. The wording matters.

And Then the Media Gets Hold of It

By the time the research reached the media article I first read about this, most of these qualifications had disappeared. “Force if necessary” became violence. Agreement with a complicated hypothetical statement became believing violence is legitimate. An association between attitudes became a radicalization pathway.

​The researcher’s own university offered this headline:

 

​

​or this one from the Australian

 

​with pictures like this:

 

​Imagine being a new reader of this article. People tend to put their trust in the media and even more trust in “research.” How could they come away from this article with anything but the sense that a surprisingly large number of men are dangerous to women and to feminism? And yet when you go back and look at the actual questions, that isn’t what the research established. That’s how a narrative gets sculpted.​
​​
​The​ original story expanded to teenage boys, Andrew Tate, rape, women being killed, terrorism, and national security. That’s quite a sculpture. And somewhere underneath all of it are the actual survey questions. I don’t know the motives of these researchers, and I don’t need to. I’m interested in something much simpler. Did the questions measure what the researchers say they measured? When I look at this study, I have serious doubts. And perhaps the most revealing evidence comes from the researchers themselves. When they asked men directly whether a male partner was entitled to push, slap, punch, kick or choke a woman because she argued with him or refused to obey him, 94.5 percent did not agree. That seems like an important finding. Funny how that didn’t make the headline.