Damaging feminist disinformation

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.