Damaging feminist disinformation
Dr Adrienne Barnett is a key player in the UK feminist push to introduce measures to allow domestic violence allegations to influence family law. This former family law barrister, now a reader at Brunel Law School, is right in the thick of it, on all the committees, writing legislation, briefing members of parliament.
As you might expect, the influential ideologue doesn’t worry too much about finding the truth. There’s a YouTube video featuring a talk she gave about feminist research where she is scathing about such matters:
“Feminist research is not just about understanding society, it’s about changing society. It has emancipatory and liberatory goals for women.”
That means objectivity is “an unattainable and indeed undesirable goal”. And when it comes to finding evidence to support their theories, the woman is totally shameless:
“We don’t go out and collect data; we create data.”
How’s that for declaring one’s hand? These feminists’ stated goal is disinformation, manipulating and manufacturing data to be used to advantage women and disadvantage men. You can bet their liberatory goals for women mean very bad news for men.
The sisterhood running Australia’s key institutions are applying the same principles – blatantly creating data, shaping research and using it to promote their anti-male agenda.
Last month this headline- “One in three men report using intimate partner violence” – was plastered across the news.
The media reveled in news of research from the Ten to Men study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies which found one in three men reported being violent towards their partners.
Somehow the Institute forgot to mention in their report that almost a third (30.9%) of the men surveyed were victims of similar violence, which included both physical and emotional abuse. AIFS’s reported data excluded all the men who were victims but not perpetrators of violence – a total of 355 forgotten survivors.
AIFS has been approached seeking an explanation as to the missing figures after men’s researchers discovered the apparent discrepancy but, so far, there’s been no response.
This large, expensive longitudinal study was launched amid great fanfare with the backing of two government Ministers and numerous other luminaries. Minister for Social Services, Tanya Plibersek, described the high levels of male perpetration as “concerning but sadly not surprising.”
What would surprise our deceived Australian community is the critical missing result – that almost as many men as women report being victims of physical or emotional abuse. That’s the truth that all our key government organisations are very keen to suppress, even though it has been replicated in hundreds of international studies across the Western world. In this country the disinformation campaign has been so successful that news of this common pattern of two-way violence hardly ever makes it onto the public radar.
Consider the fact that this Ten to Men study claimed to be aimed at “filling the gaps in knowledge about why males on average have poorer health outcomes than females, and why certain groups of males have poorer health than males in general.”
How are we filling the gaps in knowledge if we fail to even look at the impact on men’s health of being victims of abuse? Male victims are not even mentioned – contributing to the shame and silencing that leaves these men particularly vulnerable to serious mental health issues.
How’s that for creating rather than collecting data? This doctoring of research to produce only findings that promote men as perpetrators is a shocking betrayal of the ethical standards that once would have been expected from AIFS – but sadly is now par for the course.
The truth is most of our government organisations are willingly allowing themselves to be part of a conspiracy to deny the existence of male victims of violence. Virtually all our government organizations are dutifully promoting this disinformation, with the enthusiastic assistance of our feminist-led mainstream media.
In 2001 Adam Graycar, a former director of the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) wrote a paper on young people and violence which included this comment: “Up to one quarter of young people in Australia have witnessed an incident of physical or domestic violence by their father or stepfather against their mother or stepmother.”
What he failed to mention was 22 per cent had witnessed domestic violence against their dads or stepdads by their mums or stepmums – an almost identical number to the 23% figure for the group he was happily promoting.
A quarter of a century later, Australia’s major criminology institute is still singing from the same feminist songbook, focusing obsessively on female homicide victims and denying female violence.
So, if you browse the Institute’s current website to find out about homicide in Australia, the tabs for statistics on this topic won’t give you a broad overview of what’s going on. Instead, you are shown “an intimate partner homicide dashboard” which is all about homicide perpetrated against a female. No mention of dead men. No mention of violent women. Take a look:
It speaks volumes that this is the showcase chosen by AIC for introducing their section on Homicide in Australia, a revelation of their priorities.
Sure, if you dig deep on the site, you can find evidence of all sorts of interesting trends, like the significant drop over the last thirty years in homicides perpetrated by men, compared to female killing which remains pretty constant.
There’s also the fact that there’s been a large drop over the last three decades in female victims of intimate partner homicide, narrowing the gap between the sexes regarding this particular crime.
Surely it would make more sense for the website’s introductory page to include commentary on some of these trends rather than simply catering to the evil men agenda.
(Note – don’t read too much into small ups and downs. We are talking tiny numbers here – with only 55 homicides in 2023-4).
Then there’s NSW’s excellent criminal research body, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) – which has long churned out solid reports using unbiased data on all sorts of vital issues. But even they seem to have recently adopted the ideologues’ DV playbook. Look at this graphic. Notice anyone missing?
Surely it is disinformation to ignore male victims and female perpetrators, to deliberately shape the data to give the impression that our country is overrun by dangerous men.
We are talking here about reports to police, which says nothing about how many are supported by evidence leading to actual convictions. And these reports would certainly include false allegations of assault made to give women leverage in family law disputes – an issue which is never mentioned in BOCSAR’s analysis, just as it is totally verboten in all government-controlled discussions of domestic violence.
Femocrats in government organisations are busily crafting an anti-male narrative not just in regard to domestic violence and homicide but in all sorts of other policy areas.
I’ve written before about the antics of Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant (aka eKaren) who is currently trying to bully the government into denying kids under 16 access to YouTube as part of new laws imposing political censorship. My 2022 blog showed how the eSafety Commission had manipulated data presented in their annual report to claim females comprised the major victims of image-based online abuse by conveniently leaving out sexploitation which accounts for most (57%) of the total problem, with males seven out of ten of the victims. At that time the Commission was totally ignoring the exploitation of boys, despite the Federal police issuing warnings about this growing threat to young people.
Our eKaren is not the only one claiming that women are the major victims of cyberbullying. Take a look at this excellent summary of overseas data – taking issue with the fact that government policies on cyberbullying and online harm tend to be skewed to protect women and girls. (To view full-sized images, you may need to go to my Substack page here. Click on the first image, then follow the arrow on the right to see the first set of images.)
Nearly done, click on first image below to see the remainder.
This is all the work of a brilliantUK-based digital creator, TheTinMen, who describes his goals as “men’s health and male suicide prevention: evidence based, unapologetic activism.”
Unapologetic activism? Isn’t that just what we need? Next week I am having a video chat with George, TheTinMen’s hard-working creator, comparing notes about how men’s activism is faring in Britain and Australia.
We do have some good news to share – like growing public criticism of one of feminism’s key propaganda exercises. On the international front, possibly the most glaringly obvious manipulation of data by feminists is the Global Gender Gap Index produced by the World Economic Forum. This annual report, which purports to measure gender equality in nations around the world, has been systematically rigging the data to ensure women are seen as disadvantaged.
It assiduously ignores factors where it is well known that men are disadvantaged, such as workplace fatalities which in most countries are roughly 90% male, or suicide and homelessness which are overwhelmingly male.
Plus, it utilizes an utterly bogus scoring system where male disadvantage is counted as equality. This is achieved by capping the female/male ratios at 1.0. For example, there are 46% more female than males in tertiary education in Australia but the calculated ration isn’t 1.46 but rather, 1, because it is capped. The much greater female group is counted as equality and problems with male entry to university are hidden.
Even stranger, the GGGI methodology insists that women are denied “equality” in a given country unless they live an average of at least five years longer than men, and counts “healthy life expectancy” – the average number of years a person can expect to live in full health – which further reduces the gap between men and women.
The whole thing is a gigantic con job and finally is being widely called out. David C Geary, a psychology professor who has developed his own, unbiased index – recently wrote for Quillette showing how the GGGI index is being used to distort policy decisions in ways that consistently favour girls and women, creating contempt for boys and men.
We were pleased to note the GGGI this year seems to have sunk with barely a trace, with even our leftist media largely choosing to ignore it. This may be because Australia has improved its ranking, shifting from 24th in global rankings, to 13th in 2025. Our feminists aren’t keen on anything that suggests women aren’t doing so badly. What use is propaganda if it tells the wrong story?
Our Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, was naturally still keen to push the GGGI barrel, suggesting the latest report proves there’s still gender equity work to be done. “The report found that at the current rate, it will take 134 years to achieve gender parity across the globe,” she said, boasting of “re-introducing gender responsive budgeting to ensure that gender equality is at the centre of government decision-making.”
That’s Geary’s point about distorted policy decisions. The disinformation is designed to foster very real discrimination against men, enabling policies which, for instance, deny funding for male violence victims, boy’s education and male suicide prevention, incentivize women to raise children without fathers and ignore the need to protect children from abuse by mothers.
It is often said that we live in a world drowning in disinformation. There is no better example of this than the cesspool of doctored data and research emanating from feminist ideologues now running our country.