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 characterises 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 research was based on chats or ‘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 realise 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 researchers for their faulty premises, flimsy conclusions, and ideological bias, and is rightly appalled by the 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 criminalise 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 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 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.’

Today’s psychology culture says to hell with objectivity, particularly when boy shaming is on the agenda. The Labor government is currently throwing money at school programs attacking boys for toxic masculinity and this type of research is just what they need to justify this dangerous social engineering.

University sociologists got the ball rolling but sure enough, our psychologists then jumped on board. Our professional psychology body, The Australian Psychology Society (APS), is now promoting a new professional development course on Mainstreaming the manosphere’s misogyny: Exploring how teen boys navigate the Andrew Tate effect.

This course is based on yet another ‘study’ promoting paranoia about Tate, this time from media experts at the University College London who sat around chatting with a bunch of 13-14 schoolboys getting their views on Tate’s videos. The resulting ideological hogwash is being promoted as ‘evidence-based’ professional education.

I had an interesting chat with Hannah Spier for my YouTube video about many other examples of how psychology has gone off the rails. Here’s the video – sorry it is rather rough and ready. We had major production problems this week. But it is worth listening to this brave woman.

Hannah mentions the role of the American Psychological Association (APA) which is the leading voice in mental health and the gatekeeper for psychology licenses. The APA controls continuing education, ensuring its ideological positions shape the field, not just in the US because European universities openly adhere to APA standards.

As Hannah explains the APA has always been a political actor, weighing in on issues far beyond psychology, from criminal justice to immigration:

To maintain control, it ignores or downplays research that contradicts its preferred narratives. Why isn’t this ideological conformity challenged? Likely because a 2012 study found that only 6 per cent of the 800 psychologists surveyed identified as conservative, ensuring a left-wing monopoly over what gets researched, how findings are framed, and what is promoted as psychological ‘truth’.

Two clear examples: the APA’s promotion of concepts such as ‘implicit bias/conscious bias’ and ‘microaggressions’, concepts with no scientific validity, yet so deeply embedded in training that they function as societal gaslighting, making people second-guess every interaction. The debunked Implicit Bias Assessment remains APA-endorsed, with the organisation falsely claiming 80-90 per cent of white people show implicit bias while pushing vague, untested ‘treatments’ with no proven effectiveness.

In Australia, the APS has a similar role, endlessly promoting ideologically biased theories and concepts. I talked with Hannah about the numerous battles I have had with the APS over the years, over their promotion of ideological positions on a range of issues.

Hannah points out that, unlike other disciplines, where discredited theories and approaches are usually discarded, psychology tends not to self-correct:

In psychology, however, bad ideas never die. Not only are discredited theories preserved, but psychology’s popular appeal ensures that these simplistic, easy-to-believe ideas spread like lies that run around the world before the truth can get its shoes on.

And even when the truth emerges, psychobabble goes on its own sweet way. The conversation reminded me of an article I wrote nearly 25 years ago about ‘trauma vultures’ – the teams of psychologists and counsellors making a living helping people deal with the impact of witnessing disasters, like school shootings, train disasters, earthquakes, and motor accidents.

Their much promoted ‘trauma debriefing’ was supposed to prevent lasting effects on their psychological health but it turned out that wasn’t working. I wrote in 2007 about new guidelines stating that psychological debriefing should no longer be offered on a routine basis. Solid research had shown that venting inner turmoil immediately after a trauma is not only often unhelpful but can sometimes make things worse, increasing the likelihood of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The new guidelines suggested survivors of potentially traumatic events should be supported, and monitored over time to see who runs into problems. Most people who experience a traumatic event recover on their own with the help of family and friends.

That’s what is supposed to happen. But the reality is the trauma vultures have simply rebadged themselves as offering ‘psychological first aid’ and whenever there’s a disaster the politicians invite them in to ply their wares. Having carved their way into disaster relief territory there’s no way psychologists are going to give that up.

There are many areas where psychology is contributing greatly to human knowledge with valuable empirical work and I do still refer to some excellent, unbiased psychologists who have the expertise to genuinely help people in need. But it is alarming that this important discipline’s professional bodies and university courses have fallen capture to ideology because they are indoctrinating the professionals of the future, including school counsellors, child experts in our courts, and policymakers who play such a vital role in shaping our society.