Has Feminist Ideology Destroyed Psychology and Society? Yes! By Mrs Vera West

In a world increasingly fractured by ideology, Bettina Arndt, a veteran sex therapist and men's rights advocate, argues that feminist ideology has hijacked psychology, turning a once-scientific discipline into a weapon of anti-male propaganda. Her recent article, published on Modernity News and The Daily Sceptic (July 2, 2025), claims this shift is not only ruining psychology but also fuelling broader societal harm, particularly against young men.But has feminist ideology truly "destroyed" psychology and beyond?

Arndt, drawing on the work of anti-feminist psychiatrist Hannah Spier, outlines how feminist and postmodernist ideas have eroded psychology's scientific foundation:

1.Ideological Bias Over Science:

Arndt argues that psychology, once rooted in empirical research and objectivity, has shifted toward "relativism, identity-based theories, and subjectivity." Professional bodies like the Australian Psychological Society (APS) and American Psychological Association (APA) promote feminist-driven narratives, prioritising ideology over evidence.

Example: A Monash University study on "misogynist radicalisation" among schoolboys, influenced by figures like Andrew Tate, relied on interviews with 30 female teachers, lacking historical comparisons or objective measures. Arndt and Spier call this "claptrap," passed off as research due to its alignment with feminist biases.

2.Anti-Male Propaganda:

The Monash study and an APS course on the "manosphere" frame boys' admiration for Tate as evidence of misogyny, ignoring their desire for agency, wealth, or status, normal teenage aspirations. Arndt sees this as "boy shaming," vilifying traditional masculinity as toxic.

The APS's promotion of such courses and the APA's advocacy on issues like criminal justice and immigration reflect a broader feminist agenda that casts men as oppressors and women as victims.

3.Real-World Consequences:

Arndt cites the APS's support for debunked research by Jennifer McIntosh, used to deny fathers overnight child custody, as evidence of psychology's misuse in family courts. This shows how feminist-driven policies harm men and families.

She also references "trauma vultures," psychologists offering ineffective post-disaster debriefing, rebranded as "psychological first aid," despite evidence it may worsen outcomes. This illustrates psychology's resistance to abandoning flawed practices when they serve ideological or financial interests.

4.Societal Impact:

Arndt warns that psychology's indoctrination of future professionals (e.g., school counsellors, policymakers) spreads anti-male bias into education, law, and culture, eroding trust and fairness. This aligns with our concerns at the blog about "woke social policies" fuelling societal fractures, potentially leading to a "post-apocalyptic" state.

Arndt's argument has traction but requires scrutiny to assess whether feminist ideology has truly "destroyed" psychology:

Supporting Evidence:

Bias in Research: The Monash study's reliance on subjective interviews and lack of rigour supports Arndt's claim of declining scientific standards. Similarly, the APS's promotion of ideologically driven courses suggests a shift from objectivity.

Anti-Male Trends: A 2025 Newsweek survey found 77% of young men (16–25) believe men should hold leadership roles, and 83% see men as providers, reflecting a backlash against feminist narratives. The "manosphere" grows as young men feel alienated by anti-male rhetoric, validating Arndt's concerns.

Institutional Capture: The APA and APS's advocacy on social issues (e.g., feminism, immigration) shows psychology extending beyond its scientific remit, risking bias. Spier's critique of psychology's postmodern shift aligns with broader concerns about ideology in academia.

Societal Fractures: Professor David Betz's warning of UK civil war risks due to low trust and factionalism, discussed at the blog today, suggests feminist-driven policies could contribute to division, which it arguably has, from the erosion of the family, to the attack upon manhood. It is a cancer on the body social which has got out of control.

It is not a counter to this claim to point to some areas of psychology which are clinically useful, such as neuropsychology and cognitive behaviour therapy. The claim is a general one about the broad direction taken and the influence of postmodernism and feminist ideologies is strong:

Education: Programs targeting "toxic masculinity" in schools, as Arndt notes, may alienate boys, contributing to their disengagement. Newsweek reports declining male support for feminism, with young men drawn to anti-feminist influencers.

Family Courts: Arndt's example of McIntosh's research shows how feminist biases can skew legal outcomes, denying fathers fair custody. This fuels resentment and distrust in institutions.

Social Cohesion: Betz's warning of civil war risks due to low trust and factionalism could be exacerbated by feminist policies perceived as anti-male, especially amid ethnic and cultural tensions (e.g., Germany's clan brawls).

Cultural Narratives: Feminist-driven media, like Ms. Magazine, emphasises women's victimhood, while the manosphere counters with male victim narratives, deepening polarisation.

Arndt's argument highlights a threat: ideological capture undermining trust and fairness, potentially leading to social chaos discussed at the blog today. Betz's civil war warning amplifies this, suggesting feminist-driven policies could be one fracture point among many (e.g., immigration, economic strain).

https://modernity.news/2025/07/02/how-feminist-ideology-captured-psychology/

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

She wrote a recent blog about the ideological corruption of psychology which featured research from an Australian university, Monash, which last year made headlines with pernicious claptrap about the influence of Andrew Tate and the manosphere in encouraging schoolboy misogyny.

The claptrap 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 so-called research was based simply on chats (termed "qualitative interviews") with a mere 30 female 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."

Elsewhere, Spier 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 and normal male interaction to incriminate boys. They attribute any misbehaviour to an underlying hatred toward women.

She suggests the authors fail to 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.

The interesting twist was 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 Spier points out, was once committed to scientific methods, seeking 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 has no interest in objectivity, particularly when boy shaming is on the agenda. Australia's Labour Government is currently throwing money at school programmes attacking boys for toxic masculinity and this type of research is just what it needs to justify this dangerous social engineering.

The Monash University sociologists got the ball rolling, but sure enough, our psychologists then jumped on board this nasty anti-male propaganda. Our professional psychology body, the Australian Psychology Society (APS), is now shamelessly 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 University College London, who chatted with a bunch of 13-14 year-old schoolboys, getting their views on Tate's videos. The resulting ideological hogwash is being promoted as 'evidence-based' professional education by the APS and sold to its members.

Spier points to the role of the American Psychological Association (APA), which is the leading voice in mental health and the gatekeeper for psychology licences. As Spier explains, the APA has always been a political actor, weighing in on issues far beyond psychology, from feminist ideology to criminal justice and immigration.

In Australia the APS has a similar role, endlessly promoting ideologically biased theories and concepts. I have had numerous battles with the APS over a range of issues, including the work of psychologist Jennifer McIntosh whose research on overnight care of infants and toddlers has been used to deny fathers overnight care in family courts across the world. Even after the McIntosh research was thoroughly debunked by a group of 110 child development experts, the APS continued to promote her work for many years.

Even when the truth emerges, this type of psychobabble goes on its own sweet way. Nearly 25 years ago I wrote 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. New 2007 guidelines concluded 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. 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.

As one of Australia's first sex therapists, Bettina Arndt started her career talking about sex on television and teaching doctors and other professionals about sexual counselling at a time when such topics were largely taboo. Her current, even more socially unacceptable passion is exposing Australia's unfair treatment of men with the relentless weaponisation of laws and policies that see women only as victims. Her decades of advocacy for fair treatment of men in the Family Court included serving on key government inquiries. Bettina makes YouTube videos and blogs on Substack.