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