The anti-feminist psychiatrist

How refreshing to discover an anti-feminist psychiatrist. Very few people in the "helping professions" have the courage to openly oppose the prevailing orthodoxy.

But Hannah Spier is well placed to do so because the Norwegian psychiatrist is currently taking time out from her career to raise her three children. She's now living in Switzerland and producing YouTube videos as well as writing a Substack blog – both named "Psychobabble" – exposing how feminist and postmodernist ideas have infiltrated psychology and are screwing up our society.

Featured in her recent blog about the ideological corruption of psychology was research from our own Monash University which last year made headlines with pernicious claptrap about the influence of Andrew Tate and the manosphere in encouraging schoolboy misogyny.

This was based on a study which claimed to provide evidence of 'misogynist radicalisation' – "a concept that characterizes a recent shift in boys' behaviour, their treatment of girls and women, and the views on gender relations as demonstrated in interactions with their teachers."

But as Hannah Spier points out, the so-called research was based simply on chats, "qualitative interviews", with a mere 30 female teachers - but no male teachers. She sums up the research: "No proper evidence. No historical comparison, no opposing perspective, and no objective measures whatsoever-just hearsay and emotional appeal passed off as research. Yet, it sailed through peer review solely because it aligned with ideological bias."

In another blog Hannah has written at length about what is wrong with the Monash University research, pointing out that under the guise of protecting girls, the researchers exploit what has always been considered harmless banter, exploration, and normal male interaction, to incriminate boys. They attribute any misbehaviour to an underlying hatred toward women.

She suggests that the authors accidentally hit on a crucial truth - that boys do feel disempowered by the feminist movement and social phenomena like #MeToo – and explains how the researchers use it to disparage boys:

These 11-year-old boys, who were 4 or 5 when #MeToo was at its height, are being blamed for the resentment these teachers project onto them. The authors don't consider that boys' enthusiasm for Tate stems from a desire to reclaim a sense of agency and respect in a society that devalues traditional masculinity.

If they took the time to have a proper conversation with a teenage Andrew Tate fan-and really listened-they'd quickly realize that much of the appeal is the desire for easily earned money, cool cars, and impressing girls, as teenage boys have always wanted.

Hannah calls out the Monash researchers for their faulty premises, flimsy conclusions, and ideological bias, and is rightly appalled by the authors' lack of concern for boys' well-being.

Instead of offering solutions like better disciplinary measures or male mentorship, they vaguely call for more research on how boys' behaviour affects girls, ignoring the root of boys' dissatisfaction. If they truly believe the "manfluencer" ideas are dangerous extremism, the conclusion should have at least considered addressing the dissatisfaction and resentment boys feel towards society-emotions that, left unaddressed, may prove far more psychologically harmful than simply being "shushed."

For decades, girls have been encouraged to embrace confidence and self-expression. Now, when boys receive similar encouragement from influencers like Andrew Tate, feminists react with alarm, eager to criminalize normal male behaviour. There is no concern for boys' well-being, no solutions for their frustration-just a fixation on the supposed negative impact on-wait for it-girls.

Naturally in Australia our biased, unthinking media lapped up the Monash research. "It was like being in an emotionally abusive relationship," one teacher told the ABC, describing her relationship with male students allegedly turned into misogynist beasts by Tate's toxic influence.

The interesting twist was it turned out the researchers weren't even psychologists. The Monash study was actually conducted by sociologists, a profession which never claims to be a science. This differs from psychology which, as Hannah points out, "was once committed to scientific methods, following the positivist paradigm, which sought objective truths through quantifiable, empirical research. This approach assumed that human behaviour could be systematically measured and analysed. However, over the past few decades, the field has shifted toward relativism, identity-based theories, and subjectivity."