Great job Jim of exposing the misandry here. It is amazing to me how some researchers will bend over backwards to make men look bad, and do it with a straight face.
1. Distort the definition of an "offence" to get a high(ish) percentage for whatever they are looking for, but publish headlines and reports based on the primal understanding of the offence, rather than the wide definition which is in the data.
I say "primal" because that's how the headline will hit the reader, even if they just see it in passing.
2. Don't report the results for male victims or female perpetrators, under the same broad definition.
Whenever I see "shocking", or similar, in a feminist headline for a "scientific" survey I know that both of these will be present.
These also make it hard for anyone in public life to contest the headline, and often the $millions of taxpayer dollars which flow from it, because they will immediately be cast as "defenders" of some unspeakable offence, with new distortions of what they have said. People have been cancelled for this.
It's happened so often in the past, and will continue, but that only makes it more important that someone competent (and patient!) debunks it each time.
It might be helpful for an organization to attempt to scientifically survey both men and women K-12 teachers in the US concerning the prevalence of similar attitudes. Traditionally, most of us might have been concerned about a small subset of men, among teachers, who might harbor an inappropriate interest in minor students. But, anecdotally, it's been astounding recently, how frequently one female teacher, after another, has been charged with grooming and sexually exploiting and abusing minor boys. Superficially, there seem to an awful lot of young, fairly attractive, married or couple women in positions of responsibility, in schools, who derive feelings or excitement and power - and who perhaps seek a return to their own youth - by using boys as sex toys. It's difficult to tell from the outside, if these stories are actually much more common, or, if they're mainly just attracting more attention.
2. did they check if they were really men or really women?
3. no wonder the feminists don't want the 'identified' as women, because it makes 'women' look bad but they leave out any 'identified' as men!!!
4. I'm lazy and didn't research the 'men' in the Bureau of Statistics, but the population is roughly 27,227,096 and the sample was 1945 men, which is 0.00714% of the entire population;
5. and, from 4 above, though not represented correctly as stated, the 'ENTIRE male population of MEN are filthy, disgusting, sex obsessed, children obsessed, toxic pieces of shit'**.
6. moving from 5 to 'women', we don't get those stats for purposes of DEI.
7. with all that I've been learning, reading, hearing from 'trans', it is all mens fault, again.
8. I find it outrageous that the 'age of consent' is not uniform across Australia, so their stats are, as you state, really are skewed and they 'keep a straight face';
9. I really must avoid, as much as possible in completing any survey. I recently completed an LGBTQ+++ here in Europe and really went for the jugular with some of their questions and by that I meant I named and shamed that I had, in the last year, been bullied by lesbians in a WhatsApp group. But, I must really watch what I say in any survey if I must/decide to do it.
Thank you James for all this work to expose the corruption by Institutes that receive tax payers money.
Great job Jim of exposing the misandry here. It is amazing to me how some researchers will bend over backwards to make men look bad, and do it with a straight face.
Thanks for investigating this one, James.
It is so predictable...
1. Distort the definition of an "offence" to get a high(ish) percentage for whatever they are looking for, but publish headlines and reports based on the primal understanding of the offence, rather than the wide definition which is in the data.
I say "primal" because that's how the headline will hit the reader, even if they just see it in passing.
2. Don't report the results for male victims or female perpetrators, under the same broad definition.
Whenever I see "shocking", or similar, in a feminist headline for a "scientific" survey I know that both of these will be present.
These also make it hard for anyone in public life to contest the headline, and often the $millions of taxpayer dollars which flow from it, because they will immediately be cast as "defenders" of some unspeakable offence, with new distortions of what they have said. People have been cancelled for this.
It's happened so often in the past, and will continue, but that only makes it more important that someone competent (and patient!) debunks it each time.
Great work, and very much appreciated!
Thank you for your continued support of The Nuzzo Letter, Stephen. Much appreciated!
Thank you for addressing this bad research.
You’re welcome.
It might be helpful for an organization to attempt to scientifically survey both men and women K-12 teachers in the US concerning the prevalence of similar attitudes. Traditionally, most of us might have been concerned about a small subset of men, among teachers, who might harbor an inappropriate interest in minor students. But, anecdotally, it's been astounding recently, how frequently one female teacher, after another, has been charged with grooming and sexually exploiting and abusing minor boys. Superficially, there seem to an awful lot of young, fairly attractive, married or couple women in positions of responsibility, in schools, who derive feelings or excitement and power - and who perhaps seek a return to their own youth - by using boys as sex toys. It's difficult to tell from the outside, if these stories are actually much more common, or, if they're mainly just attracting more attention.
Of course they ignore female teachers raping underage boys.
I cannot help myself:
1. are they all biological men or women?
2. did they check if they were really men or really women?
3. no wonder the feminists don't want the 'identified' as women, because it makes 'women' look bad but they leave out any 'identified' as men!!!
4. I'm lazy and didn't research the 'men' in the Bureau of Statistics, but the population is roughly 27,227,096 and the sample was 1945 men, which is 0.00714% of the entire population;
5. and, from 4 above, though not represented correctly as stated, the 'ENTIRE male population of MEN are filthy, disgusting, sex obsessed, children obsessed, toxic pieces of shit'**.
6. moving from 5 to 'women', we don't get those stats for purposes of DEI.
7. with all that I've been learning, reading, hearing from 'trans', it is all mens fault, again.
8. I find it outrageous that the 'age of consent' is not uniform across Australia, so their stats are, as you state, really are skewed and they 'keep a straight face';
9. I really must avoid, as much as possible in completing any survey. I recently completed an LGBTQ+++ here in Europe and really went for the jugular with some of their questions and by that I meant I named and shamed that I had, in the last year, been bullied by lesbians in a WhatsApp group. But, I must really watch what I say in any survey if I must/decide to do it.
Thank you James for all this work to expose the corruption by Institutes that receive tax payers money.
**please excuse my French
I think there is a typo
I think "Around one in sex" should be "Around one in 6"
Keep up the good work.
Thank you for bringing the typo to my attention. I have corrected it.