Our public challenges of Dr Henrietta O’Connor and Dr John Goodwin

A book I recommend to people all the time is Swayne O’Pie’s Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism. It’s available in a Kindle edition and a paperback edition outside the UK with the title Exposing Feminism: The Thirty Years’ War Against Men. I learned a lot from the book, and one area of interest – because I’d previously known little about it – was feminist ‘research’. A whole section of the book, 45 pages, is devoted to the topic, with the following chapter titles:

Cheating and Lying: The Dishonesty of Feminist ‘Research’

Choosing to Cheat

Ethics, Propaganda and Feminist ‘Research’

The Media and Feminist ‘Research’

Universities, Social Policy and Feminist ‘Research’

Examples of Feminism’s Dishonest ‘Research’

Housework: Do Women Work Harder Than Men?

‘Daddy Doesn’t Really Love You… He Only Wants to Bully Mummy’

Feminists are Allowed to Cheat and Lie: Because They are ‘Special People’

The author has kindly permitted me to include with this piece a short chapter, “Ethics, Propaganda and Feminist ‘Research’ ”:

131119 Exposing Feminism Chapter 47

Now, what’s prompted this sudden interest in feminist ‘research’? My attention was drawn recently by R to an intriguing piece about Tracey Leghorn, a research student working towards completion of her doctoral degree in the Centre for Labour Market Studies, based in the School of Management at Leicester University. Tracey is the Associate Director of HR with the East of England Ambulance Services and Director of All About HR Ltd. Details of her study:


The subject she’s studying is interesting, and it’s good to see she’ll be considering Dr Catherine Hakim’s work at length. But what troubled us was this:

Research Approach

Adopting feminist methodology, the research will be completed through the analysis of qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with more than 20 paramedics.

Given what we know about feminist ‘research’ from Swayne O’Pie’s book, we can safely assume that the conclusions of her research would fall in line with what feminists would want. And so they are, it seems. From the final paragraph:

Based on the fact that female paramedics appear to be successfully combining motherhood with one of the most practically and psychologically difficult 24/7 careers, the argument follows that, if they can combine work and motherhood, anyone can.

How exactly does that argument ‘follow’? A more credible possibility is that female paramedics are highly unrepresentative of women with respect to their orientation to work and home life, and therefore they don’t show that ‘anyone can’, let alone ‘anyone who wants to, can’. As Ms Leghorn points out, it’s known that paramedics have a high level of job fulfilment – the same can surely not be said of many lines of work in which women (and men, for that matter) engage. We know women are drawn (more than men) to lines of work which are emotionally rewarding, and where they’re appreciated for their work. So they’re keen on working in the medical field and distinctly NOT keen on working in engineering, mathematics, physics…

On 9 November we emailed Ms Leghorn, asking her to email us materials explaining exactly what she meant by ‘feminist methodology’, but it bounced straight back, so we must assume her course is over. Later the same day we emailed her two supervisors, Dr Henrietta O’Connor (Reader in Employment Studies) hso1@le.ac.uk and Dr John Goodwin (Reader in Sociology) jdg3@le.ac.uk. Links to their web pages are here:



We forwarded the original email to Dr O’Connor and Dr Goodwin, along with the following:

Good evening, I hope this finds you both well. I just sent an email to Tracey Leghorn (below) but it bounced straight back, so I must assume she is no longer working on her course. I wondered if you might therefore – as her named supervisors – be willing and able to answer the question I put to her, namely, could you please explain what is meant by the term ‘feminist methodology’ and point me towards any materials which explain those methodologies? Thank you.

Ten days have now passed since we sent that email, and we haven’t even had the courtesy of acknowledgements. We’re therefore now making the following public challenge to Dr O’Connor and Dr Goodwin, and we’ll email them both in a moment:

Could you please email us materials, or point us towards materials, which will explain what Tracey Leghorn meant by ‘adopting feminist methodology’ in her study of paramedics? Thank you.

We’ll also add this to our long list of public challenges of feminists and their collaborators http://j4mb.org.uk/our-public-challenges-to-feminists/. One of the things that rankles most is these people are funded by taxpayers, and of every £1.00 collected in income tax in the UK, men pay £0.72. British men pay £64 BILLION more income tax than British women every year. It’s mainly men who finance the people (including vast numbers of academics) who relentlessly trample on their interests.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jericho One

    “Feminists are Allowed to Cheat and Lie: Because They are ‘Special People’”

    Women are being condescended in the same way as ethnic minorities were… Of course many won’t protest as they enjoy all the benefits of make-work jobs and compo claims when work gets too tough.

  • Pingback: Diana Davison: ‘Trolling Academia’ |()