Abolition of Science by Feminism (Part 2)

Mens Rights Alberta  > AVFM, Men's Rights News >  Abolition of Science by Feminism (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1. 

When it came to campaigns against men, an accusation by feminists could be based on “own observation” in their environment, in which strongly feminist wise indoctrinated people testified in their favor. This was later refined at universities, but the irrelevance of their approach, their wrongly formulated question, and restriction of the study to women and feminist views, remained.

«While the “Fact-” and “Insider-” reports are dramatized, the “halved statistics” method is presented ‘scientifically’ cool.» (Esther Vilar, dtv anthology, p. 209)

The methodological principles of feminist “research” guarantee the greatest possible subjectivity already when collecting data.

«Methodological principles …

Data collection and data analysis

In order to capture the inherent logic of biographical construction processes as appropriately as possible from the perspective of the designers, and to minimize the problem of the reification of scientific interests at this point, collection methods are preferred in biography research that largely leave the structuring of data production to the interviewed subjects.» (Bettina Dausien, in: Handbook for Women and Gender Studies: Theory, Methods, Empiricism, edited by Ruth Becker, Beate Kortendiek, 3rd ed. 2010, VS Verlag Springer Fachmedien)

Only trust statistics that you falsified yourself! The feminist methodology guarantees twisted terminology, crooked and one-sided approaches and questions, data falsified already by the choice of topic and again by the “research objects” involved.

The methodological writings cited here may not be approved by everyone. But even those feminists, who find such methods wrong, use perspectives, terms, methodology, questions, the results of surveys, campaigns, laws, etc., which were achieved with such one-sided means.

The grotesque thing is that such unscientific research was carried out at the expense of the state and taxpayers, and ideologues were also promoted in huge numbers into science, government and the judiciary. Nobody came up with the idea of classifying a tendency towards ideology and unscientific subjectivity as disqualifying. State and society reacted as wrongly as possible. The war against men was mostly paid for by men.

«4. Participation in struggles and actions and the integration of research into these struggles also means, that changing the status quo is seen as the starting point for scientific knowledge. The motto for this approach could be: “To get to know a thing, you have to change it.” “If you want to get to know the taste of a pear, you have to change it, i.e. chew it in your mouth.” (Mao Tse-Tung 1968, p. 353)» (contributions to feminist theory and practice, 11, 1984, p. 14)

A very telling approach. This is similar to determining the number of live wild animals by slaughtering and filleting them. Their own effects mix uncontrollably with the agitation object. Thus, science is made absurd. Maoism has long since disappeared, but much more radical overthrow of human nature through feminism has shaped us to this day, prescribing behaviour, basic principles of thought and life, and is still in the process of expanding its massive encroachment on human nature and destroying the remains of millennia-old culture.

Cultural revolution considers itself and is paid as science. Demagogy and propaganda seized power in the scientific apparatus; knowledge has become ideological, with the aim of manipulating the object under investigation, if possible inciting it, and selling its integration into radical agitation as ‘knowledge’. They do not explore reality, but their own manipulation. These replies remained unpublished for two decades and were strictly ignored in the media, while feminist “science” spat out state-sponsored ideology every day, massively indoctrinated, and massively preferred ideologists made careers that buried objectivity – this contrast sheds an illuminating light on the situation.

«5. From the foregoing it follows, that the choice of the research subject … will depend on the general goals and the strategic and tactical requirements of the social movement» (contributions to feminist theory and practice, 11, 1984, p. 14)

Ideology and war against men are already part of approach and premises. Their one-sided choice of topics is already agitation; the formulation of the research subject distorts reality by hiding all factors that contradict their assumptions, all aspects showing that men, for example, could be the most affected, victims or suppressed, and all questions that run counter to their propaganda. They also take things out of coherences and context. They cannot see what they hate, as structures creating bonds between the sexes, such as cultural complement and its significance for human life, for the development of empathy and responsibility between the sexes. With their ideological questions, they infected all of science, politics, justice, the media, art and society, transformed them into a dysfunctional distorted image of themselves, ridiculed the basic values ​​of civilization and themselves.

«6. The research process becomes a process of becoming conscious, both for the previous research subjects’ and for the previous research objects’ … The decisive thing about this method is that the concrete research is done … not only by scientific experts, but also by the Participants themselves.» (contributions to feminist theory and practice, 11, 1984, p. 15)

What is leading the way in the state, the media and at universities today stems from trend science that is based on false assumptions and twisted premises. None of this should ever have been taken seriously.

«Christa Müller

Partisanship and dismay: women’s research as a political practice

  1. Places of development of a feminist social theory are not the research institutes, but the actions and struggles of the movement as well as the theoretical discussion about their goals and strategies. (see Mies 1978) »(Handbook for Women and Gender Studies: Theory, Methods and Empiricism, edited by Ruth Becker, Beate Kortendiek, VS Verlag Springer Fachmedien, 3rd edition 2010)

So far, there has never been such an extreme perversion of research into ideological struggle.[1]

Subjective invention and female-feminist feeling were and are systematic methods, according to basic feminist writings, which describe their postulates, methodology and theory.

«Methodological principles

in the feminist understanding of research as a search process, in which gender research designs and invents” its subject in a reciprocal relationship between theory and empiricism (cf. Becker-Schmidt 1987: 14) or in other varieties of constructivist social research (eg Knorr-Cetina) 1989, Sutter 1997).» (Bettina Dausien, in: Handbook for Women and Gender Studies: Theory, Methods, Empiricism, edited by Ruth Becker, Beate Kortendiek, 3rd ed. 2010, VS Verlag Springer Fachmedien)

They deliberately invent topics, whereas real issues and real problems, such as male burdens and male losers, are systematically indignantly prevented and thus suppressed. Problems were also deliberately created systematically:

«But that corresponds exactly to the principle of combining action and research. 1. A problem must be created. (“To recognize a thing, you have to change it”).» (Contributions to feminist theory and practice: women’s research or feminist research? 11, Social Science Research and Practice for Women, 1983, page 17)

Feminist female subjectivity, moods, hysteria, and not only non-factual methods, but strategically falsifying and anti-factual methods have, like a virus or cancer, eroded the once objective science and destroyed its basic values. The same applies to politics, legislation, law, education, training, the media, reporting, entertainment, the public and the whole of society.

The feminist principles presented here formed the basis for the emergence of a feminist perspective, its questions, selection of topics, procedure, and perspective. Since they were anchored like a virus everywhere in the scientific world, they are continuously reproduced and continue to have effect, possibly with increasing strength, even if these principles should no longer be shared by future feminists or scientists. They are institutionalized, and therefore invisible, work in terms and ways of thinking that produced feminist waves.

Already the terms, questions and underlying perspectives are wrong, but are often no longer perceived, because they have become a habit, that is taken for granted by those affected by them. Therefore, they’re not questioned, even less overcome. What didn’t exist before, was an irrational and false conspiracy theory (“patriarchal system” or “patriarchal science”), is now demonstrable fact in the form of a radical feminist social system and feminist pseudoscience, that pervades all human-related subjects.

The consequences spread throughout society.

«Tricks in the discussion

‒ Make excessive demands: ask for something that you don’t really want …

Bring opinions as facts. (“After all, it’s a fact that you can’t trust car dealers.”)

Shake your head dismissively, pull a face as if what is being said are extremely ridiculous.» (De Groot, Ter Veld, 1985, Courage to Strategy, p. 83, Verlag Frauenoffensive)

Brainwashing instead of learning from kindergarten to university degree, research with an ideological approach, where already the question that was so biased, that feminist prejudices could only be confirmed. UNscientific subjective methodology, state and statutory enforced feminist ideology, tendential funding, approving research projects when they have feminist bias. A climate, in which “politically incorrect” opinion, topic or method of work threatens to destroy professional future or existence of the researchers, teachers or professors involved, so that hardly anyone dared to examine important issues and questions without feminist ideology.

Objective research collapsed in humanities. The basic principles of science and the rule of law have been twisted like by no ideology before. Instead of scientific facts, the scientific enterprise produces ideological viruses: feminist tendency. The immune system has collapsed, also affected by the feminist virus. The state promotes precisely those forces into the terminally ill system, that have created the destructive virus and continue to install it, who have disqualified themselves through subjective, emotional partisanship based on rampant hysterical ideology. The same results from an analysis of politics, where subjectivist and balance-destroying principles have been anchored in a similar way. Exactly those forces are promoted by the state, that operate this work of destruction.

«If scientific knowledge … can be interpreted against the grain, then science in the interest of women must endeavor to make the knowledge monopolized accessible to women» (Renate Schwab and 9 others, Between autonomy and appropriation: women’s research and feminist science …, 1990, p. 57)

Explosive knowledge of female activists fighting men is hidden from men. Such ideological secret ‘science’ could be rightly called as a “feminist conspiracy” that actually exists, whereas “structural patriarchy” is a wrong conspiration theory of feminists. By contrast, classical science had value neutrality as basic principle, which feminist theory expressly rejected. Feminists spoke of “value-free”, “objective”[2] and “consistent … uni­ver­sal male science”[3] and created the opposite.

«Susanne Dermutz

Science in the interest of women …

  1. It is necessary to develop various strategies so that science … does not turn out to be a boomerang … to make the knowledge monopolized” accessible to women and to translate the research results into practical action with women. This requires the implementation and recognition of other forms of publication and exploitation of scientific knowledge and, last but not least, the intensive cooperation of feminists and between different institutions» (Renate Schwab and others, Between autonomy and appropriation: women’s research and feminist science…, 1990, p. 129)

Secret commands that work mentally underground, strictly excluding men and the public, using their results with their networks in practical actions fighting ‚heterosexual white male’ – at the expense of the state and many male taxpayers![4]

Due to the secrecy of feminist ‘research’, this book can only document the visible tip of an iceberg. The ‘results’ kept secret could be worse. In my book “Culture and Sex” I described the results of a hacker named “Agent Orange”, who infiltrated a radical feminist secret group, that debated (in strict exclusion of men) the possibilities of androcide, i.e. exterminating men.

«Confidentiality in Gender Studies

Hadmut Danisch, October 1, 2015 …

I have often written about the absurd secrecy of gender studies. In the United States, they sometimes have to guard the teaching materials during breaks and are only allowed to carry them around outside in brown paper bags so that men cannot see them … And now a reader refers me to this video of a student from LA who is surprised about it that as a first duty the brazen vow of silence is imposed on her:»[5]

While their activities, teachings and ‘results’, on which campaigns are based, are hidden from the public, especially from men, so that no one knows what really is going on, critique of feminism has been suppressed for decades, so it could not reach the public in time.

«This cen­sor­ship is measu­rable and veri­fi­able. The spe­ci­fic mecha­nism by which it hap­pens is the ten­den­cy for women as a group to sup­press any opi­ni­on that isn’t biased to­wards women, in con­trast with the equal­ly measu­rable and veri­fi­able ten­den­cy for men not to sup­port another man un­less they spe­ci­fi­cal­ly agree with the man’s opini­on.

GirlWritesWhat ex­plains at 20:35 in her video en­titled “How fe­mi­nism con­ned so­ci­ety, and other not-so-tall tales”

A 2004 stu­dy of gen­der dif­fe­ren­ces in au­to­ma­tic in-group bi­ases found that men lack a mecha­nism that bols­ters au­to­matic own-group pre­fe­rence. On­ly women showed this bias in all four ex­pe­ri­ments, and in 3 of them all sub­jects, male and female, showed a strong bias to­wards women. … “which is hor­ri­fying to me be­cause it means women in power will act strong­ly in the in­terests of women, where­as men in power ex­hi­bit no own-group pre­fe­rence at all but will act more often than not in the interests of women as well.”»[6]

The study shows that male participants either preferred women or showed no preference, while women massively preferred other women. The phenomenon has been observed many times.

In addition, experiments have shown that men feel good when they are free to express their opinions, but women tend to feel uncomfortable when views are expressed that they do not approve of, especially when it’s done by men. (see above) Internet forums and feminism massively confirm the above study.

In addition, there is an effective inhibition in men of using their strength against women. In contrast, there is no such inhibition in women of directing their strength against men.

Feminine and childlike traits, characteristics and their high voices, usually calm angry men. Conversely, male characteristics as deep voices rather excite angry women further.

According to new developments in evolutionary biology, men lose their reputation (in the male hierarchy), when they compete with or turn against women, as well as when they do not behave in a cavalier manner. Therefore, men instinctively avoid such behavior. This does not apply to women when dealing with men.

«All this brings the MRM to a de­vasta­ting im­passe. News­pa­pers and ma­ga­zines know women will have deep ob­jecti­ons to any ar­ticle that doesn’t bla­tant­ly fa­vor women, ma­ny women go­ing so far as cal­ling ef­forts to ad­dress the in­creasing­ly poor edu­ca­ti­onal suc­cess of boys or ef­forts to ad­dress the cruel im­ba­lance against men in fa­mi­ly court as “woman ha­ting”. Media out­lets know as a re­sult that women will ef­fec­ti­vely boy­cott any news­pa­per or ma­ga­zine which prints ar­tic­les cham­pi­oning men’s rights, par­ti­cu­lar­ly if that ar­ticle is writ­ten by a man. No sen­sible me­dia com­pany exe­cu­tive would print the truth un­der these cir­cum­stances, es­pe­ci­al­ly gi­ven that women con­trol most of any house­hold’s spen­ding on the pro­ducts that bu­si­nes­ses pay the news­pa­per mo­ney to ad­ver­tise.

Since as a con­se­quen­ce men ge­ne­ral­ly can’t be paid for wri­ting on men’s rights the way women are paid for wri­ting about fe­mi­nism, this cen­sor­ship al­so has a in­cal­cu­lab­ly huge impact on any dis­cus­si­on that im­pacts pub­lic po­li­cy.»[7] (Ethi­cal, 21.11.2012)

While men naturally prefer women or are impartial in debates, such as when making decisions, but never discriminate against women, according to the above studies (among others), women have a clear and systematic preference for women, whereas unfortunately no impartial attitude could be found. This goes so far, that not only unilateral, partisan decisions are made, but massive censorship and oppression of those who think differently, even the manipulation of entire societies and generations, starting from early childhood.

A strong, also mental, bite inhibition in men prevents them from criticizing women, feminism, the women’s movement, opposing their determination, no matter how much their own vital interests are violated. Even at the moment of own danger and threat from feminist ideology, this reflexive mental biting inhibition works reliably, as several feminist waves have shown, most blatantly the current one.

The reverse is true for women. A collective aggressiveness and tendency to be bossy, even if all the facts speak against it, which are simply hidden, is impressively demonstrated by all feminist waves as a collective pattern that can easily be triggered by emotional and irrational spurring. Apparently, there is a drive that can be activated by mass psychology in women when they turn against men, which is the exact opposite of male bite inhibition.

If there are no cultural structures that give people orientation, there is always the risk that such mass psychological aberrations due to subjective misperception (see books “Oppression” and “Abrechnung”) can be triggered again at any time, destroying the foundations of civilization, science and culture.

These facts should have been known before feminist waves hit us. May future, less indoctrinated generations be able to draw logical conclusions from the facts, which are currently too “politically incorrect”, and would therefore be detrimental.

How a balance was and is possible under these circumstances, why it’s impossible in a feminist society, can only be understood through abstract logic, that is neutral in value. Contemporaries who approach the topic emotionally or with personal concern will fail, as will anyone who does not break away from feminist terms, topics and views.

In addition to deliberately suppressing objective scientific methodology through manipulative feminist ideology methods, and facts through propaganda, the feminist struggle against truth and science took on a very banal meaning:

«Feminist PhD Candidate: Science Is Sexist Because It’s Not Subjective

Women and minorities cannot understand logic or objective truths, says a graduate student in her dissertation, so science classes should stop using the scientific method.»[8]

Objective methods are more demanding and tedious. Those who want to erase all statistical differences misuse state power to massively promote the incapable. Quality and excellence they find disturbing.

«The other function: strategic thinking, correcting actions that do not correspond to ideology» (Courage to strategy, 1986, Verlag Frauenoffensive, p. 203)

The goal is the deepest indoctrination of entire generations that has ever existed:

«Influencing is the key word when carrying out an action» (Courage to strategy, 1986, Verlag Frauenoffensive, p. 106)

Soothing by giving in does not work against strategic manipulation by radical ideology; on the contrary, it means massive funding.

For decades, masses of feminist trash was produced, funded by tax-payers, propagated in media, while critical analysis was completely ignored. Most of the time, the books didn’t even get publish. Now they’re hidden and unknown.


[1]     The fears of critics of earlier feminist waves have been far exceeded. If they were still alive, they would have to be overcome by horror of not having resisted more resolutely.

[2]     «Methodological postulates
1. The postulate of value-freedom, neutrality and indifference towards research objects – the most important yardstick for objectivity so far – is being replaced by conscious partiality»(contributions to feminist theory and practice, 11, 1984, p. 12)

[3]     «There is no compulsion to be consistent like in – cosmopolitan male universal – science … (cf. Smaus 1989).» (Marlis Krüger {ed.}, What does feminist actually mean here?, 1993, p. 281)

[4]     Already in the 1990s I described it in “Les Deux Sexes / The Two Sexes”, which was unfortunately not published. For decades, it has not been possible to make the public aware of the facts about how we are being lied to and deceived by feminism. In the meantime, this ideology has raised heavily indoctrinated generations, who no longer know natural conditions and culture, who can hardly fully recognize the full extent of the problem. We have no idea how much better the world would look today without such one-sidedness.

[5]     http://www.danisch.de/blog/2015/10/01/geheimhaltung-in-gender-studies/
I don’t use the encrypted .PDF mentioned in the cited article as an argument; in that case there may be other explanations (e.g. legal ones). This does not reduce the real problem of feminists excluding men and acting in secrecy from men.

[6]     www.the-spearhead.com/2012/11/21/feminist-censorship/, derzeit: http://lunaticoutpost.com/showthread.php?tid=246857

[7]     www.the-spearhead.com/2012/11/21/feminist-censorship/, https://lunaticoutpost.com/showthread.php?tid=246857

[8]     http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-science-sexist-not-subjective/

Original Story on AVFM
Author: Jan Deichmohle
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *