People like Antifa and Big Red are public examples. TERFs are another example, but they're part of a bigger group too. Radfems in general are pretty toxic, and they constantly and provably cherry pick and distort the data they cite, in ways that would make a creationist blush.
One example is from Australia, but it's just one example of many. There was a survey on domestic violence which found mothers and fathers were equally likely to be observed hitting each other by children, at 22% and 23%, but the report went out "almost 1 in 4 children have seen their father hit their mother". This is pretty typical. Politicizing and gendering things that aren't in fact gendered. Here's the source:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/domestic-violence-data-shows-women-are-not-the-only-victims/news-story/2749c4517a57c33aca8bc2da9a40e2f9“Up to one quarter of young people in Australia have witnessed an incident of physical or domestic violence against their mother or stepmother,” Adam Graycar, a former director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, wrote in an introduction to a 2001 paper, Young Australians and Domestic Violence, a brief overview of the much larger Young People and Domestic Violence study.
Somehow Graycar failed to mention that while 23 per cent of young people were aware of domestic violence against their mothers or stepmothers, an almost identical proportion (22 per cent) of young people were aware of domestic violence against their fathers or stepfathers by their mothers or stepmothers — as shown in the same study.
This is the type of thing I'm talking about, people who cherry pick
their own data to win recruits for a particular ideology, regardless of what their own research actually stated. They're driven by ideology first and foremost, and facts are only acquired as a secondary thing, just be careful to not collect the
wrong facts, or you'll need to bury them in the report. This is why many domestic violence research programs
avoid asking non-gendered questions, because they then get non-gendered answers, which are inconvenient when they go against your doctrine. So it's safer to completely filter out questions beforehand that tend to give non-gendered results so you know you'll get the gendered results desired.
So, they're
starting from the "ideological truth" they wish to prove, then looking for
confirming evidence for that "truth". And when
they find evidence that their own ideology is wrong, they bury that evidence, and label anyone who brings up
their own evidence as part of the "conspiracy". That's what has happened to the reporter who wrote about this: she is now accused of being part of the "patriarchal conspiracy" for pointing out their hypocrisy*
* The hypocrisy here is that they're sweeping literally
half the incidents of domestic violence under the bed, because they don't like the gender of the victims (male), and they don't want to accuse the perpetrators because of their gender (female), a clear double-standard, while they're labeling anyone who says to look at
all domestic violence sufferers as equal as merely the patriarchy trying to "downplay" women's suffering. Domestic violence is wrong, full stop. Acknowledging that their are twice as many victims as previously thought isn't "downplaying" anything. e.g. say there were provably twice as many
female victims as previously thought, nobody would claim that adding them to the list of victims was "downplaying" anything. So ... if we're doubling the number of victims, and pointing out that almost half of them are men, exactly how is that doing a disservice to other victims? It's an incredibly sexist double standard to not allow additional victims to be acknowledged because they don't fit the theory.
Author
Topic: Things that made you laugh today: some people notice when l change the title (Read 1845552 times)