What innocent questions lead to...

<Nordic Countries defund Gender Ideology

A devastating blow for “Gender Theory”: the Nordic Council of Ministers (a regional inter-governmental co-operation consisting of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland) has decided to close down the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute. The NIKK had been the flagship of “Gender Theory”, providing the “scientific” basis for social and educational policies that, from the 1970s onward, had transformed the Nordic countries to become the most “gender sensitive” societies in the world.

The decision was made after the Norwegian State Television had broadcasted a television documentary in which the hopelessly unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed.

The producer of the series is Harald Eia, a Norwegian comedian, who had gained some popularity in Norway with his satirical TV shows. Besides being a comedian, Mr. Eia also holds a degree in social sciences. He was puzzled by the fact that, despite all efforts by politicians and social engeneers to remove “gender stereotypes”, girls continued to opt for typically “female” professions (such as nurses, hairdressers, etc.) whereas boys continued being attracted by “male” careers (such as that of technicians, construction workers, etc.). Indeed, rather than being reversed by “gender equality” policies, the trend became more accentuated.

In his documentary, Mr. Eia just went, in the company of a camera team, and asked some innocent questions to the leading researchers and scientists of the NIKK. Then he took the replies and brought them to leading scientists in other parts of the world, notably in the UK and the US, asking them to comment on the findings of their Norwegian peers. As was to be expected, the results of the Norwegian bogus science provoked amusement and incredulity among the international scientific community.
...

As it turned out, a few innocent questions, asked by a comedian, were sufficient to bring down the pompous edifice of “Gender Theory”. It is hoped that the lesson will be heard in other countries, or in the EU and the UN, where this ideology still holds sway in the corridors of power…”>

Full article:

http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/content/nordic-countries-defund-gender-ideology.html

An interesting article alright Onthebeach.

According to the very reputable and totally unbiased 'menshealth Australia' site you found, all the Nordic countries, and their close mates, have been told by a comedian who 'asked questions' that gender equality 'theories' are all rubbish?

Apparently, these revelations have 'debunked' all previously known feminist ideas on gender inequality.

Why then have the Nordic Gender Equality Ministers just been sharing their experience in preventing domestic violence and violence against women at a Symposium as recently as 5th March this year?

http://www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/news/gender-equality-ministers-share-experience-of-preventing-violence

You leap to wrong conclusions, Suseonline. I have no connection whatsoever with Men's Health Australia (MHA).

From the site MHA is reputable and independent and in this case it is merely quoting a public source about a public happening. MHA's activities, editorial policy and perspective are spelled out in detail and are wholesome. See here,

http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/about/

Unless you can provide substantial evidence to the contrary, your unnecessary sarcasm directed against the reputation of MHA and its organisers reflects on you. In any event there is a link for further inquiry.

That gender ministers have met does not dispel the article's conclusions.

There is no doubting the truth of the article. See here,

<A devastating blow for “Gender Theory”: the Nordic Council of Ministers (a regional inter-governmental co-operation consisting of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland) has decided to close down the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute. The NIKK had been the flagship of “Gender Theory”, providing the “scientific” basis for social and educational policies that, from the 1970s onward, had transformed the Nordic countries to become the most “gender sensitive” societies in the world.

The decision was made after the Norwegian State Television had broadcasted a television documentary in which the hopelessly unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed>.
[refer to the linked article I gave in the OP]

I would rather listen to a Nordic news site than an Aussie Men's Health site when discussing Nordic gender issues Onthebeach.

I am impressed with their work on decreasing violence against women and I think we could do a lot worse than follow their example here in Australia.

Thanks for pointing out this information, as I will be doing much more reading on this subject when I get time.

Suseonline,

If myths that are debunked to prove that NIKK's 'research' is all bull*(bleep) then the millions can be used for better purposes and offenders have no rationalisation, no excuse. That is, they do their violence by their own decision, by their own choice and it has nothing to do with their gender, then judges can act on that hopefully.

I hope too that people go on to question judges rationalising/excusing violence because of the offender's cultural background. Such as the judges who let indigenous rapists and molesters off the hook because of their culture and upbringing.

Men and women choose to commit crimes, and sexual crimes are no different. No excuses, hit them hard.

It is simply amazing though how this Nordic research agency has managed to get away with publishing falsehoods for decades. Why didn't any other researcher or expert ever debunk their fraud?

Where there is money available, especially large grants of government money, there is graft. Unfortunately that fraud and graft seems to be systemic.

You don't have to go all the way to the Nordic countries to find junk pseudo-science around gender.

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/releases/show/corrections-to-a-publication-and-media-release-from-monash-university

"The following statement seeks to correct the public record [...] inaccuracies that were contained in the book “Child Abuse and Family Law” that was published in 2007 by Allen and Unwin and co-authored with Professor Thea Brown"

"Incorrect statements in the Book

On page 20 of the book, there is a statement which reads as follows:

“Domestic violence is increasingly reported as a cause of partnership breakdown, with two thirds of couples in Australia attributing the separation to domestic violence and one third to severe domestic violence, (FLPAG, 2001).”

The statement is incorrect."

and

"The statement in the book states (and again references the 2001 FLPAG Report) that one third of couples in Australia attribute their separation to severe domestic violence. This statement is incorrect."

It goes on. I tried to get Allen and Unwin to publish an erratum, but they refused, quite rudely, via Elizabeth Weiss who calls herself a "Publisher" in her correspondence. A brief google of Ms Weiss reveals she has a long association with feminist publishing and in particular a feminist "collective" called "Women's Redress Press", so I suppose it's not surprising that Professor Brown's work was not scrutinised for errors and that Ms Weiss would be reluctant to draw attention to those "errors" (which discredit Prof Brown's thesis in the book).

I do hope an Abbott Government has the courage to do what the Vice-Chancellor of Latrobe didn't have the guts to follow through with and abolishes Gender Studies and other such parasitical departments.

I certainly agree with you there Onthebeach, in that it seems to me that Indigenous women and children in this country are the ones most likely to be hurt by domestic or sexual violence within their own communities, and mostly by their own family members.

When I worked with those communities I felt angry and frustrated at the senseless violence that was ignored by police because it was just "cultural fighting amongst families".
Men, women and children were spurred on by alcohol and substance abuse to beat the c##p out of each other.
I don't know what the answer is.

Dear onthebeach,

Thanks for the article.

Complete objectivity is particularly difficult to achieve
in the social sciences. By rigorously excluding personal
biases and by submitting research findings to the
criticism of the sociological community, however,
sociologists can guard against subjective distortions and
can reach a high degree of objectivity.

It appears that this was not done in the case in the Nordic example
that you've given us and deserved to be defunded. Gender is an
interesting subject worthy of further study. Social reality
turns to have many layers of meaning. The discovery of each
each new layer changes the percpetion of the whole. To be sure,
sociology is an individual pastime in the sense that it
interests some people and bores others. Some like to
observe human beings, others to experiment with mice...

Onthebeach,
Before the advent of the internet it was more difficult to gather and spread information, when a new technology arises and the amount of information available to the public increases it typically takes about 15 years to have an impact. You'll notice that governments and academics will still try to promote BS even though they know that anyone with a few minutes to spare and a computer or smartphone can check the facts of the matter and broadcast their findings to the world.
It's pretty hard to propagate BS ideas like "Gender Theory" in this environment, here's a few videos for the weekend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqO73PUgMak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ21NLr_Qc8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMifHT1AwY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMifHT1AwY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZsKdEl0-dg

I'd posted previously on Feminist research and subjectivity. Broadly from what I can see it seems to be a relatively common tenant of feminist research that objectity is rejected and feminist research should seek to validate the subjective experiences of women.

Dispassionate, objective research is seen as a male construct.

Some links in one of my earlier posts at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4912&page=0#131549

There are a range of other articles around which seem to be written by feminist researchers discussing similar issues, the implications of a rejection of objective research in favor of a subjective approach which seeks to validate a particular set of beliefs is something that seems to not often get serious attention.

R0bert

We should note that there are subject matters that
present research problems of a kind that natural
scientists rarely have to deal with. This is
especially true when the subject matters are not
inanimate objects or unreflecting animals. When
a researcher is dealing with people who are self-aware,
who have complex individual personalities, and who
are capable of choosing their own courses of action for
both rational and irrational reasons things become quite
complex. The fact that a researcher is studying human beings
poses major challenges to research methodology.

1) The mere act of investigating social behaviour may
alter the very behaviour that is being investigated.
When people know that they are being studied, they may not
behave as they normally would.

2) People - unlike bacteria or hydrogen atoms - have
emotions, motives, and other highly individual personality
characteristics. People may give false information
deliberately, to put themselves in a better light, or
unintentionally, becaue they misinterpret a question or
do not understand the reasons for their own behaviour or
attitdues.

3) The origins of sociel behaviour are almost always
extremely complex, involving many social, psychological,
historical, and other factors. It is usually much more
difficult for the sociologist than for the natural
scientist to sort out cause and effect because so many
variables tend to be involved.

4) It is not permissable for ethical reasons to perform
certain kinds of experiments on human beings.

5) The sociologist unlike the natural scientist is part
of the very subject he or she is studying.

All sociologists recognise these problems, but not all are
agreed on how to deal with them.

Those are compelling reasons why feminism, or is that some social science academics, should not be in universities.

Might as well fund a legion of academics justify Creationism. It is a belief too and should have its own faculty. Otherwise it would be discrimination.

Feminist academics lie to society in pretending that their beliefs are based on fact and scientific peer-reviewed academic research, and are not just bogus circular arguments based on an ad hominem.

Suseonline,

We have in common similar grass roots observations and practical experience of aboriginal society. Our concerns are much the same.

I have not responded to you earlier because I was trying to remember one on the articles I read that encapsulated and expressed far better than I ever could, the problems that I have witnessed over the years. That is experience I have gained largely through travelling this land.

There are many wonderful people. But there are some truly awful traditions and SOBs who take advantage of them too. Australia's political correctness of multiculturalism casts a blanket over it. The courageous whistle-blowers who have continually raised red flags have lost their jobs and more for their efforts.

Anyway here is the article, appropriately titled 'Culture of Denial':

Culture of denial
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/culture-of-denial/story-e6frg8px-1111113048370

That is what so many advocates and protesters protect.

As awful as that article was to read Onthebeach , it is certainly one of the best I have read on Indigenous violence and abuse. Thank you for that.

I too remain angry that many awful violent or sexual abuse victims from Indigenous communities were ignored by police because of so called 'cultural sensitivities'

In fact, it was because of a conversation I had at a police station re one of the very stories in that article that directly led me to quitting my job in Aboriginal health.

I remain traumatised to this day...

Dear onthebeach,

Your statement that "feminist academics lie..."
is a sweeping statement and is not worthy of you.
Had you placed the word "some" in front of it - I
would not have a problem with it at all. But your
inference that they all do - is a bit of a stretch,
just like tainting all men with domestic violence.

You are right Lexi. Not all feminists hate men, just as not all female academics hate men or indeed identify as being feminist either.

I sometimes get the feeling that several posters on this site have a jealous streak for the women bright enough to attend university. Maybe they couldnt get there themselves?

I think there is a remnant of past old fashioned patriarchal views that women should be at home with the kiddies, and looking after their man, rather than having a career or studying at university.

Not all women at university have an agenda to speak out against males, or conduct studies to prove how violent males are. I am sure they have many other subjects to study.

Indeed, one doesn't have to be an academic to foster their own 'gender theories', as many on this site have proved...

Dear Suse,

Thanks for that.

I'm merely trying to broaden the discussion.
Other wise it will degenerate to finger-pointing.

Still, as I;ve stated in the past the art of
reasoned argument is a skill not easily acquired.
Sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable
generalisations every time. And stating that
"all feminists do this or that, instead of saying
"some..." makes one appear to be arguing on an
emotional level - not a mature intelligent one.

A more effective approach would be a subtle hint
that some feminists often use certain techniques to
achieve their goals. And that this also applies to
other researchers as well.

If you're going to criticise one group - you should
look at the bigger picture - otherwise it becomes
somewhat one-sided and biased.

Lexi, an even more egregious logical error is to try to pretend that a generalisation invalidates the specific examples.

Not EVERY feminist has to be a raving loony for the raving loonies to be exemplary.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Where the original hypothesis is based on an ad hominem, there is no adequate peer review and yet the feminist 'findings' are presented as fact to society, what other conclusion can be reached than quackery and with self-serving and in some cases malicious intent?

We have had it argued here already in defence of these frauds that feminism cannot even be defined because it is a 'broad church'. Honestly, that is giving a licence for fraud.

Where there are many millions of taxpayers' dollars at stake annually it is only reasonable to demand specific measurable, attainable goals and measures for success. Otherwise, put the money into homeless kids and hospitals.

Suseonline, the website of the NIKK (Nordic Information on Gender) states

"The Nordic Gender Institute, NIKK, was closed down on 31 December 2011 as an independent institute following a decision by the Nordic ministers for gender equality."

http://www.nikk.no/English/About_NIKK/

Thanks for that clarification Men's Health Australia.

I read the link you provided and was pleased to see that NIKK was only moved to another location, and that the work will continue to provide information on gender equality to Nordic countries and internationally.

"Now NIKK is going to be transformed into a co-operative body which means that NIKK will be located in another institution. The aim is to save money in ways that will release funds for other activities in Nordic gender equality co-operation."

So there is no actual 'defunding' of their work as such...

I think it's fair to say that feminist bigotry is tolerated in circumstances where other forms of prejudice are not and that the majority of high profile, left leaning Feminists are unwholesome bigots.
It's perhaps inaccurate to accuse advocates of Feminist theory and gender studies of being anti science since they are first and foremost artistic disciplines, I did an arts degree myself many years ago and the lecturers would sometimes say the most outrageous things but very few people ever pulled them up on it.
The other point is that artists are often pretty neurotic people and due to the liberal nature of the art world the views and practices of the loopier ones are given the same status and intellectual weight as the more level headed. It's a world where the works of William S Burroughs and G.K Chesterton are considered equal and by the same token the artistic creations of someone like Susan Brownmiller or Andrea Dworkin are taken as seriously as those of Ayn Rand or Emily Bronte.

As one who tried to answer Vanna's challenge regarding the anti-male focus of Austalian feminist academics I'd suggest the onus is one those who don't consider the generalisatiin to be valid to prove thats the case. I spent a fair bit of time looking for something positive said about men or masculinity by Australian academics identified as feminist (and tried to be broad in that criteria) and found the tone overwhelmingly negative about men or masculinity. The material I've seen when it deals with facts consistently misrepresents the overall picture by ignoring relevant parts of the picture to paint women as victims, men as perpetrators or the problem.

ChazP pretty much summed up what appears to be the institutional feminist position if my experience with them is typical 'The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate.' http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212833

R0bert

RObert, "ChazP pretty much summed up what appears to be the institutional feminist position if my experience with them is typical 'The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate.' http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212833"

Where there are millions of taxpayer $$ available....

Antiseptic,

Nobody is suggesting that specific examples
are invalid nor that "loonies are exemplary."

On the contrary - what is being asked is that
we broaden the discussion to not simply use
generalisations and sweeping statements when
referring to any particular group. I made it
quite clear that using statements like, "feminists
lie..." tends to tar everybody with the same
brush whereas had the word "some" been placed
in front of that statement it would be a fairer
statement. Not all feminists lie, not all
men bash women, and so on. Specific example
are one thing, and generalisations are quite another.

Lexi, I like your style : )

You have hit the nail on the head.
Antiseptic onthebeach does seem to tar all women and feminists with the same feathers.

Gender equality, or even gender-near-equality, will never be achieved while we have people amongst us who never see reason...

One of the points that I'd been thinking about is the division on this issue with what appeared to be little actual knowledge of the work of the group. Most of us probably don't have any first hand experience of the group or their work. I was generally pleased that they had been de-funded mostly based on my experience of the output of Gender Studies groups here, in the US and Britain rather than any knowledge of that specific group. I'm guessing that those who support the NIKK in this thread for the most part lack specific knowledge of their work and support them on a solidarity basis rather than out of specific knowledge.

I noticed the NIKK had a section on Men and Masculinities in the Archived section and found an article on Critical Studies on Men in Four Parts of the World.

http://www.nikk.no/Critical+Studies+on+Men+in+Four+Parts+of+the+World.9UFRrI52.ips

It provides some insights on what is wrong with so much of the Gender Studies world (for the non marxist).

The link to the subjects list of archived material can be found at http://www.nikk.no/English/Archive_1996-2011/Subjects_1996-2011/

R0bert

Thanks for those interesting links RObert.
The first article made a lot of sense to me, and seemed to say we should all be working together on gender studies, and not have an us and them situation.

"The term ‘men’s studies’ is used most often in the US, in the Nordic region, and by international publishers. It is also often favoured by those first-language English users who are not interested in developing critical, pro-feminist studies. To refer to ‘Men’s Studies’ can for them be a safe haven, where men can find their ‘voice’ and that of other men again. The use of ‘Men’s Studies’ can mask misogyny."

Surely trying to understand where both women and men are coming from, will ensure a much more harmonious world?
At the end of the day, almost all women have a loved male somewhere in their lives.
We all want the best for our loved ones, male or female.

What the documentary showed was that the women's gender studies were politicised. That casts grave doubts on its credibility and usefulness.

Society expects academic research to be skeptical, independent and rigorous. However feminist authors and academics are continually being outed for the opposite. Their work is politicised and not worth the paper it is written on. They make it up as they go and yes, it is anti-male. For a start, men are excluded.

The idea that feminists ought now expand their already well-padded bureaucracies to study men is preposterous.

I don't care what research comes up with, but it is worthless unless there is academic rigor at all times. Any charlatan can frame a circular argument, a self-fulfilling prophesy through manipulating the scope and disregarding results that are not seen as 'relevant' to a desired and pre-determined result.

Feminism has a lot in common with a religious cult. Certainly in the way the feminist knobs abuse and cold shoulder any dissenting voices from among their own ranks. There is a vicious cat-fight for ideological dominance and legal proceedings threatened going on at present among prominent feminists in Australia.

Dear RObert,

I did state in my very first post in this
thread that the specific example that
onthebeach gave of the Nordic Countries
defunding "Gender Theory," was obviously
the correct thing to have done in this
instance.

However, as I stated earlier the sociologist's
subject matter presents research problems of a
kind that natural scientists rarely have to deal
with. That is something that should be remembered
when discussing topics such as "Gender Theory."

We all need to have our consciousness raised to
the sensitivities of half the human race. Be they
female or male.

Dear Suse,

Thank You.

cont'd ...

Dear Suse,

I agree with you. As I've stated so many times
on the Forum - true liberation from the
restrictions of gender would mean that all possible
options would be open and equally acceptable for
both sexes. Then a person's individual human
qualities, rather than his or her biological sex,
would be the primary measure of that person's
worth and achievement

Suzi "Surely trying to understand where both women and men are coming from, will ensure a much more harmonious world?

Except thats quite clearly what the author of that article is rejecting. Study of men and or masculinity that does not have a marxist and pro-feminist perspective is explicitly rejected. Study of men or masculinity with any kind of positivist approach is seemingly rejected. The idea of mens studies (or some other term to discuss the concept) which gives a voice to men about their perspectives or experience is rejected.

There is no interest in trying to understand where men are coming from, if there is to be any study of men it has to be via a marxist, feminist perspective.

Lexi I agree that some of the issues are not the same as counting straight numbers. However gender studies groups seem to come at the issues with some massive bais's, they present material which has been massively filtered and re-intepreted as though it was representative of the numbers rather than a rehash of beliefs.

That present massive problems when policy makers start basing laws and funding on the "research"findings of those groups.

The DV issue is a classic case, the feminist researchers would have us believe that DV at all levels is massively gendered because their beliefs tell them men control women. When you look at the raw numbers for physical violence (I've not seen much on other forms of abuse) it's clear that women initiate violence family slightly more often than men. It's the experience of many men that women control their homes and most of the key decisions if the man wants any kind of a peaceful life.

Women get hurt more from direct violence when the situation gets extreme, physical strength is not entirely irrelevant. However men suicide in far greater numbers, we don't live as long, we are more likely to be homeless and are behind women in a wide range of factors typically denoting disadvantage rather than power and privilege.

R0bert

Lexi, "true liberation from the
restrictions of gender would mean that all possible
options would be open and equally acceptable for
both sexes. Then a person's individual human
qualities, rather than his or her biological sex,
would be the primary measure"

But biology is relevant and important. View the video dispassionately, without pre-judgement. It is true is it not that decades after positive affirmative action in education, in public media and in work, women and men still show their preferences for different roles by using their feet.

But feminists already accept that as proved by demands for higher pay for 'traditional' women's occupations.

Dear RObert,

We've covered this ground many times in the
past. Tension over gender roles is only
one aspect of conflict in the family.

Sociological research of the past two decades has
revealed an astonishing amount of family violence -
between spouses, between parents and offspring, and
among the offspring themselves.

The police detest "disturbance calls" - usually
family fights - because of the vicious and
dangerous nature of so many of these conflicts;
indeed, more police are injured or killed
intervening in these disputes than in almost any
other type of situation they face.

Surveys suggest that each year many couples go through
a violent episode in which one spouse tries to cause
the other serious pain or injury.

Wives assault their husbands as often as husbands assault
their wives, and spouses are equally likely to kill
each other. Although wives are rarely a match for their
husbands in a fistfight, they are more likely to use
lethal weapons (notably kitchen knives).

I agree with you that there should be an emphasis
on family violence by both spouses. Not just
an emphasis on one gender. Perhaps this
is due to the fact that this takes place in a general social
context that has traditionally emphasized male dominance
and female subservience.

In any event, the extent of violence in groups whose
members are supposed to love and care for one another
is not easily explained, and suggests that the modern
family may sometimes be under greater pressure than it
can easily bear.

See you on another thread.

Dear onthebeach,

Like the feminine role, the masculine role
is now more ambiguous, more flexible, more
subject to interpretation by the individual.

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of
the challenge of social and cultural change.
Under the old system, everyone knew what their
roles were, and most people unquestioningly
behaved as they were supposed to. The system
constrained people, but it freed them from the
need to make choices.

There are fewer constraints today, but the
individual now has the liberty - or the burden -
to choose his or her own path to self-fulfillment.

Our modern society is individualistic and highly
open to change and experimentation, a society in
which men and women can explore a wide variety of
possible roles.

Of course we have to realise that each society
views its own patterns of marriage, family,
and kinship as self-evidently right and proper,
and usually as God-given as well. Much of the current
concern about the fate of the modern family stems
from this kind of ethnocentrism. If we assume
that there is only one "right" family form, gender
role,
than naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there
is an immense range in marriage, family, and
kinship patterns, that each of these patterns may be,
at least in its own context, perfectly viable, and
above all, that the family, like any other social
institution must inevitably change through time.
The same goes for feminine and masculine roles.

See you on another thread.

<Surveys suggest that each year many couples go through
a violent episode in which one spouse tries to cause
the other serious pain or injury>

I wonder about the definitions used and the survey methodology. Does the definition of violence include verbal insult, restriction of budget and so on? Likewise does pain and injury include mental anguish, emotional upset and whatever? Whispered threats to chop the chocolate supply perhaps?

The reason I ask is because we can sit on our balcony above a valley of dozens of houses and not hear a peep. We don't even hear the dogs and cats any more. Dogs are practically banned by noise complaints and cats are locked indoors by green authoritarianism.

We don't see the yellowing bruises down at the shops or in the doctor's surgery either. However there is the stream of the usual suspects at the hospital emergency after hours. Bloodied, stinking of booze and lacking self pride.

Maybe real violence occasioning bodily harm isn't as prevalent among the general population as surmised and the few are responsible for many reports. Or alternatively someone is fudging numbers to support a career.

The problem I have is that one definition is used to get the numbers to bolster a feminist ideological take on gender, while the argument for support and funds is based on the shock and awe pictures of actual harm from physical violence.

Attention needs to be paid to definitions. Otherwise the money intended to help victims is diverted into the pockets of quick-witted professional who make careers out of misfortune.

Onthebeach, surely other forms of domestic violence that you brought up would be hard to quantify in any survey or statistic?

By its very nature, domestic violence is violence that occurs between family members within their homes, and often behind closed doors.

Anyone can do any number of 'surveys', but at the end of the day, how do we know the respondents are answering truthfully.... whether male or female?

Thus, the most usual indicators of the level of domestic violence in a family is the actual injuries they receive in physical confrontations, although they still lie in these situations too.

I still don't understand why more academics, male and female, don't include men in their surveys more often. Could it be that men are far more reluctant to talk about these sorts of problems.

I doubt it is all these apparently radical feminists in universities in such huge numbers that they overtake the male academics views, and that they seem to spend all their professional time trying to denigrate men!

I imagine they have many more important subjects to research...

See you all on another thread.

What the documentary demonstrated is that the gender theory that is the rock upon which much feminist though is based is complete bollocks, an invention without fact.

Research that was supposed to support gender theory is flawed and the very people who used those conclusions in advising public policy likely knew it all along.

The documentary also showed that feminism is highly politicised and any who challenge or disagree with it are ruthlessly attacked.

'thought' not 'though'

Dear onthebeach,

There are many things that are ruthlessly attacked
by the ignorant, boorish, or downright nasty as we all
know. However our conversations need to shift away from
the mass, infantile finger-pointing that now
pervades our society. It isn't conservatives, liberals,
or even feminists who are ruining things. It is the
tendency on so many people's parts to think that their
way is the right way and that people who disagree with
them are bad.

Therefore it is important that we renew dignified and
respectful dialogue with those who do not agree with us
than that we keep slavishly congratulating those who
have the wisdom to see things our way.

Lexi,

Gender theory was proved to be a massive fraud perpetrated against the taxpayer and mankind. There is no evidence to support it at all.

Might as well allow fraudsters, spivs and quacks to bloom.

Dear onthebeach,

I beg to differ with your opinion.

Alone among living creatures, human beings are
fully self-aware - capable of inquiring and
reflecfting about themselves.

Throughout history, our ancestors pondered human
nature as it seemed to reveal itself in the social
life of our species. Why do human beings form
families, and why do they worship gods? Why is the
way of life of one group so different from that of
another? What makes some people break social rules
while others obey them? What makes one group go to
war with another? What might a human being who had not
been riased in the company of other people be like?
What holds societies together, and why do all societies
continually change over time? How different are the
sexes? What about sex and personality? Male-female
interaction? Gender sociolization, Men, women, jobs,
Gender roles today, Sexism, and so on.

Until quite recently the answers to these and
similar questions came from intuition, from speculation,
and from the dead weight of myth, superstition, and
"folk" wisdom handed down from the past.

Only in the course of the past century or so
has a new method been applied to the study of human
society and social behaviour - the method of
science which provides answers drawn from facts
collected by systematic research. This new mode of
inquiry has produced the lively discipline of sociology.

Sociology is the scientific study of human society and
social behaviour. Its subject matter is huge, complex,
and varied and the knowledge produce by
sociological research remains imperfect in many ways.

Yet, in the brief time that the discipline has been in
existence, it has taught us a great deal about urselves
that we could never have learned by relying on
speculation alone. We have learned to conceive of
human beings and social life in an entirely new way.
A way that many have found and will continue to find
simetimes disconcerting, yet often fascinating.

Lexi,

The fact is that Gender Theory was proved to be a massive fraud because it was completely fudged and didn't pass muster for sociological research.

There is no evidence to support it at all.

That means that the researchers and pundits who used the 'research' to make cases for research grants and for policy changes based on the 'findings' are charlatans and defrauded the taxpayers.

There are many millions involved that could have been put to better purposes than maintaining their careers and lifestyle. They are common criminals who should be fronting courts for their crimes.

A woman shoplifts a blouse and fronts a court. But these clever rogues obtain millions by deceit from bogus claims and can avoid charges because it could embarrass politicians who took their advice at face value. Apparently it is also politically incorrect for western news media to report the story too. They have done enormous damage to the credibility of science.

Dear onthebeach,

Academic research is such a broad spectrum and
theories are tested, verified or disproved all the time
as new discoveries are made.

I don't agree with your reference to "fraudsters."
People are only "fraudsters" when they deliberately
set out to lie.

Anyway, I shall leave you to your opinion.
I shall remain with mine.

"People are only "fraudsters" when they deliberately set out to lie."

"The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate." ChazP http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212833

I think that there has been enough evidence presented over a long period including from the writings of those in the Gender industry to demonstrate the intent to deceive.

Eg onthebeache's premise is pretty well proven.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

I don't agree. Academic research has a multitude
of layers - and a multitude of opinions. One
will always find researchers who are unethical
and are motivated by their private agendas. This
does not mean that one should tarnish everyone
because of the actions of a few.

See you on another thread.

cont'd ...

talking about unethical behaviour:

http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/gender-is-hoax.html

It is Gender Theory that was proved to be horses' apples.

Where does that leave the thousands of feminist academics who should have realised it was the proverbial crock of [*bleep*] and are still making a tidy living riding the gravy train because of it? Forty years and more of a lie.

Any feminist academic worth her pay would be asking probing questions, right? Then again, maybe not if her career and department depended on it. Therein lies the rub. It is not good enough.

I'm never quite sure how to respond to closing remarks from someone who has left the thread.

For those still here from Lexi's post "One will always find researchers who are unethical and are motivated by their private agendas. This does not mean that one should tarnish everyone because of the actions of a few."

The point being made by some of us and which in my view has been demonstrated over a long period is that most of those involved in gender studies and operating from a feminist framework act unethically by quite deliberately misrepresenting the data to make it appear to support their own world view.

From the material I've looked at thats most clearly demonstrated in the area of Family Violence where the orthodoxy is very strongly based on portraying males as aggressors, females as victims.

Inconvenient facts are quite deliberately suppressed, there is evidence of various forms of threats against researchers who publish material which goes against the the preferred findings (including death threats).

This isn't a case of quibbling over minor details, it's a systematic cover up and re-interpreting of data based on marxist and feminist ideology with only rare acknowledgements that's occurring.

We might quibble over which particular word best describes the fraud that is feminist gender studies but that makes little impact on the reality that the overwhelming majority of the so called research is doctored to support the ideology rather than to discover truth.

There are exceptions but they are generally on the outer with the gender studies crowd.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

I haven't left yet - but I'm about to.

I've read your last post and I can see that
you're speaking from what you've experienced.
I'm sorry that it has all been so negative
for you. Hopefully things will improve in the
future and with future generations -
if we all work towards greater honesty, ethical behaviour
and equity for all.

It is not fair to dismiss RObert's evidence, such as the post he linked to from Chas and his review of aspects of gender studies in Australian universities, as his (lamentable and unique) personal experience.

RObert provided hard evidence which has not been dispelled.

Similarly Gender Theory has been challenged on evidence and found to be completely without any basis in fact. It is a fabrication. The motivation is hatred of men or money or perhaps both.

Why else would highly educated researchers fudge findings and along with others maintain the lie for years, collecting millions of dollars in the process? That money could have saved lives, provided food and housing or a dozen other positive, needed things.

London to a brick the gender studies departments in Australian universities still maintain the lie that keeps on giving (to them!). So much for ethics.

Lexi, snide, personal denigration is such a great way for you to avoid thinking about the substantive points being raised, isn't it? After all, anybody who disagrees with you must be defective and that's certainly not your problem, as a proud pseudo-collectivist: "I'm OK, Jack"...

OTB, the V-C of Latrobe tried to defund the gender studies department at Latrobe and was cowed into backing down by hordes of women screaming imprecations at him whenever he tried to leave his office. The tide is turning and the rent-seekers everywhere are going to find life somewhat more difficult.

They might even have to work for a living - if only they had an employable skill.

Antiseptic,

Kindly point out to me where on this thread I
have made "snide remarks..." I
have tried to argue on an intelligent level,
not an emotional one. It is interesting though
that if an opinion does not agree with yours -
you immediately stoop down to personal insults.
I see that nothing much has changed.

Dear onthebeach,

I do respect RObert's opinion and experiences.
As I do yours. And if I've caused any offence,
I apologise.

I was merely trying to point out that there are
difficulties in sociological research of a kind
that natural scientists rarely have to deal with.
The sociologist, who may be studying such issues
as race realtions, poverty, or inequities of gender,
may find it much more difficult to maintain a
detached attitude, and can even become
passionately involved in the outcome of a study.
The researcher may identify strongly with the
problems and experiences of the subjects, and there
is a risk that the process of investigation and
interpretation will be distorted as a result.

Anyway, Thank you for a robust discussion. I look
forward to the next one.

Cheers.

To my view the failure to engage with the evidence I have presented and points I've made combined with the comment about my personal circumstances looked like an attempt to pass my views off as the product of personal angst rather than the result of a lot of investigation.

I've had my rough patches but not nearly as rough as some have it.

Just rough enough to get me investigating why the rhetoric did not match the reality. Asking why professions who's foyers were adorned with anti-dv posters dismissed my ex's violence as a non-issue suggesting that she was unlikely to really hurt me (and several different professionals took that approach).

Just rough enough to start asking why the public profile of DV was always about men hurting women (even in the portrayal of emotional and psychological abuse) when that clearly was not the case for a lot of the people I knew who had been through relationship breakdowns.

Rough enough to get me noticing that when feminists write about wealth, home duties, childcare and workplace participation they tell a very selective version that ignores anything that does not paint the picture they want.

Rough enough to get me thinking about the story feminists tell of male domination of women and reflecting on what I remember of my grandparents generation and who generally seemed to be calling the shots and a bunch of other things about that generation which did not gell with the story feminists were telling.

Rough enough to get me asking why if men dominate women men die younger, learned to stand when a "lady"entered the room, gave up seats for women, gave up seats in the lifeboat and a multitude of other signs that would be clear signs of oppression if done on racial lines rather than gender.

My experiences have given me reason to look at the evidence, they don't constitute the evidence.

R0bert

Lexi, I defer to R0bert's excellent summation.

Antiseptic,

It is always important to question.
And RObert has learned to do that through
his life experiences. In the past men
used to have greater access to wealth and
power and prestige. They could earn more
money, experience a range of career
and other opportunities that used to be beyond
the reach of most women. But of course the
stress associated with a life of competition,
repressed feelings and fear of failure had
dire consequences. The statistics tell the
story:

Compared to women, men had three times the
suicide rate, three times the rate of severe
mental disorders, and six times the alcoholism
rate. Men committed over 80 per cent of all serious
crimes and constituted over 90 percent of all
person inmates. They were far more likely than
women to suffer stress-related diseases such as
ulcers, hypertension, and asthma. The bleakest
statistic was life expectancy. The average male
died seven years sooner than the average female.
It is hard to believe today that this catalogue
of woes applied to the group that was supposed
to be in the upper stratum in sexual stratification.

Of course today, gender roles are in a state of flux,
with some people adhering to the traditional patterns
of the past and others exploring new and sometimes
radical alternatives.

The sociological research of the past two decades has
revealed an astonishing amount of family violence -
between spouses, between parents and offspring and among the
offspring themselves. Leading researchers on violence
among family members have observed that:
"Some families and homes are perhaps as or more violent than
any single institution (with the exceptions of the
military, and only then in time of war)."

This of course does not constitute that all families are
violent.

Returning to the OP, gender theory is rot. But there are some who make a jolly good income from the lie.

Are gender 'roles' in a state of flux? No, I don't believe there is evidence for that either. Most men and women want children and a family arrangement formalised by marriage to do it. Raising children alone is tough. Raising children with a job and a demanding boss, male or female, is even tougher.

But women especially want children and women especially want to nurture them. To assert otherwise is simply not believable. It is nature, so look around.

The difference now is that there is pressure on women to work and work a lot longer. In fact towards a self-funded retirement age that is further off and could be even further off in the near future if government keeps spending on other things.

It is also true that some women and men are hooked on materialism and consumption. Interestingly, conspicuous consumption is a persistent theme of editors of women's mags and columnists who claim to be feminists. That is the ideal of feminist careerism isn't it? Women wearing extravagant and ridiculously expensive clothing and accessories to show off to their friends. Hermes and the rag top Beamer? She waves a hand towards the walk-in robe packed with shoes, "You can't put a price on something that makes you feel that special".

Next minute lecturing young women that they owe feminists everything. Then berating other women for breastfeeding or indulging in the practical and enjoyable crafts associated with home and family. Women have no harsher critics than the feminists.

However women do go through many transitions in life, which is not something accepted by the feminist push in Australia. It will never come to pass that women will eschew the joy, fulfillment and honour of having a family and raising children.

Of course there are some who aren't interested or want the State to do it for them. So what and honestly who cares? It is always too much information. Their choice and they are very welcome to it.

Dear onthebeach,

Of course gender roles are in a state of flux,
with some people adhering to much more
traditional patterns and others exploring new
and sometimes radical alternatives. One size
no longer fits all. Generally speaking,
the lower a person's social class, the more
likely he or she is to conform to traditional
stereotypes. The reason is probably that
lower-class people have less freedom and
effective choice in their lives, and so are
slower to change established patterns. For
example - Hispanic-Americans tend to conform
more closely to traditional ways, partly because
they tend to be relatively conservative on family
issues and partly because a good deal of "machismo:
is still entrenched in their culture.

Black Americans on the other hand are the least
male-dominated of the racial and ethnic groups in
the US because so many family bread-winners in the
black community are female.

But despite such variations, the prevailing patterns
generally provide the standard against which all others
are measured.

For their part, most men in Australia, after some
hesitancy, have generally reacted positively to the
growing equality of women. In fact, their own roles,
being complimentary to those of women, are inevitably
in some flux also. Men are now permitted a more gentle
and expressive personality than would have been
considered appropriate a few decades ago - the 1950s
"John Wayne" image of manhood has less and less appeal to
both sexes.

Like the feminine role, the maasculine role today is
more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to
interpretation by the individual. Resolving this kind of
ambiguity is part of the challenge of social and cultural
change.

John Wayne is not OK. But Wonder Woman is OK.

In fact the characters played are creative inventions and despite the myth-making and patronising authoritarianism of feminists, the public can distinguish between the screen and reality.

John Wayne the man exhibited the sensitivity, strength and positive virtues that are equally applicable to both men and women. He was a good father and a good citizen. Here he is,

http://www.tonymedley.com/Articles/Patrick_Wayne_Reflects_on_John_Wayne_as_a_Father.htm

Whereas some would like to imagine that sexual ambiguity is becoming prevalent and boys can be turned into half-decent girls, the truth is otherwise as demonstrated by the documentary that is the subject of this thread.

Just as an observation of how people have not changed in their needs, expectations and hopes for a good life and future, is there a child who wouldn't want and obtain the most benefit from a happy family with mum and dad? What too about the passion of women for finding 'the one' and moans about alleged 'lack of commitment' of young men?

Be careful what you wish for and accept that it is your choice, and your responsibility later.

Dear onthebeach,

Sexual equality does not mean gender similarity or a
"unisex" society. It does not mean that women will
gradually adopt the characteristics of men or that
the two existing genders will converge on some
happy medium. The most probable pattern is one in
which many alternative lifestyles and roles will be
acceptable for both men and women.

Postindustrial modern societies are individualistic
and highly open to change and experimentation, and
therefore it is likely that men and women will
explore a wide variety of possible roles. As I stated
earlier - true liberation from the restrictions of
gender would mean that all possible options would be
open and equally acceptable for both sexes.
Then a person's individual human qualities, rather
than his or her biological sex, would be the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievement.

As for my citing the "John Wayne" image in my earlier
post. This wasn't meant as a criticism of Mr Wayne as
a person - merely the image that he represented of
American manhood - which today is more flexible.

BTW - My husband and I lived and
worked in Los Angeles for close to
ten years and I got to meet Mr Wayne on several occasions.

I worked in the Reference Department of the Edward L. Doheny
Memorial - University Library, University of Southern California.
Mr Wayne along with many other celebrities belonged to
the "Friends of the University Library," and attended
quite a few of the Library's functions. He was a very charming
man.