Korean car manufacturer Hyundai Motor UK recently conducted a study of 1,000 UK drivers “to better understand what impacts people’s behaviour when they are driving”. It found that women are on average 12 per cent angrier than men while behind the wheel of a car¹.

Motorist Justine Henshaw-Bryan attacking cyclist Damien Doughty, who was rushed to intensive care with a punctured lung. It’s not known if her sentence was shortened in response to her becoming pregnant between sentencing and the commencement of the sentence.

That anger can manifest itself in road rage, and female perpetrators of road rage can be murderous. For example, a Manchester mother of two struck another vehicle with a golf club. The female driver of that vehicle struck her in turn with her vehicle, stopped, reversed back, and drove backward and forward over her prone body, eventually killing her². We routinely treat female violence with leniency. She was given a one year prison sentence and ordered to resit her driving licence. The presiding Judge excused the leniency of the sentence on the grounds that the act was, in his view, “not deliberate”.

The feminist advocacy industry obligingly generates seemingly academically respectable studies claiming to ‘prove’ their various hypotheses. Such studies typically filter and generalise highly selective social observations to claim evidence of a pervasive, systematic bias against women for which a political program based on the disproportionate allocation to women of economic, social, and legal privilege is both necessary and legitimate. Statistics and male behaviour that appear to be consistent with the claim are drawn attention to. Statistics and female behaviour that are inconsistent with the claim, where efforts to discourage analysis fail, are ‘explained’ in ways that preserve the core hypothesis.³

Such studies rarely survive investigation of their methods. But, having been elevated in the course of 40 years of intensive feminist advocacy to the level of commonly accepted wisdom, feminists can reliably assume they will rarely now be scrutinised, and deploy a wide array of discursive tactics to discourage it⁴. Yet such scrutiny readily reveals the murky origins of what passes for the ‘consensus’ and ‘common knowlege’ that supports key feminist claims.⁵

Feminist author Christina Hoff Sommers evaluates critical feminist claims, revealing a characteristic pattern of systematic overstatement, selectivity, and fabrication.

From this uncertain evidence base, it is routinely claimed that road rage is yet more evidence of the claim of ‘white male privilege’, and justification of the need to further extend the range and reach of male-specific legal sanctions.

The Hyundai study is interesting (and rare) because it originates outside of the gynocentric paradigm. It uses quantitive measures — webcams and hand sensors — to objectively measure driver emotion. Unlike political advocacy research, its purpose (as far as we can tell) is to help it, as a vehicle manufacturing company, to sell more vehicles, rather than to advocate a feminist political agenda. Rather than ask the leading question: “Is it true that men are angrier than women in cars?”, it asks: “What makes people angry, so we can reduce those factors in our cars and sell more of them”. Gender factors are an outcome, not an objective, of the study.

The outcome, once again, is the stark falsification of feminist theory by observable reality. This is not to deny that criminal stupidity infects both sexes. But in its efforts to make the bricks of real economic, social, and legal female advantage from the straw of disobliging reality, feminism is compelled to coerce everything into its self-serving paradigm.

Thus, the report⁶ in feminist newspaper “The Guardian” of an incident in which a person is seemingly deliberately knocked from the pavement by another is not simply a story about the unpleasant and occasionally dangerous behaviour that some people show towards others. Rather, in the view of Professor Craig Jackson, Head of Department of Psychology at Birmingham University, canvassed to confer an appearance of academic legitimacy on the paper’s advocacy piece:

“I think what we’re looking at here is an embodiment of what we often see as ‘cis privilege’, or you might want to call it white male privilege…That to me is quite horrifying behaviour and I think what we’re looking at here is the pedestrian equivalent of road rage.

Fortunately, if the analogy with road rage is correct, the victim did not suffer the very much more targetted and lethal effects that some male and female victims of female perpetrators of road rage suffer. Meanwhile, what the Professor thinks he is looking at is precisely what he might be expected to see, having apparently discounted all the evidence that is simply incompatible with his paradigm.