Shulamith Firestone was a Feminist writer
who did enough thinking about Feminism to realise that there were some
conflicts between Feminism and Biology. If there is a conflict between
Feminism and Biology (to paraphrase her words), so much the worse for
Biology !
In that context, and in view of the way that Feminism has become mainstream
in the West, it is not surprising to find the following (and other similar)
passage(s) in the book Brain Sex, by Anne Moir and David Jessel:
"Some researchers have been frankly dismayed at what they have
discovered. Some of their findings have been, if not suppressed, at
least quietly shelved because of their potential social impact. But
it is usually better to act on the basis of what is true, rather than
to maintain, with the best will in the world, that what is true has
no right to be so" (on page 7 of the 1991 Delta edition).
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that Western Democracies prided
themselves on their free press, freedom of expression, and freedom of
access to information ! What does Democracy mean, if Feminists are able
to suppress inconvenient scientific facts, like Stalin and Hitler ?
The essay Men,
Women, and Ghosts in Science, by Peter Lawrence, was discussed
on 13 March 2006 on National Radio's Nine-to-Noon programme. That essay
states:
"The Cambridge University Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen published
research on the 'male brain' in a specialist journal in 1997, but
did not dare talk about his ideas in public for several years. One
reason for this absurd taboo is that we cannot think objectively because
our minds are full of wayward beliefs and delusions -- 'ghosts'. And
one of these ghosts is the dogma that all groups of people, such as
men and women, are on average the same, and any genetic distinctions
must not be countenanced. Such ghosts bias our perceptions and censor
our thoughts.... Baron-Cohen presents evidence that males on average
are biologically predisposed to systemise, to analyse, and to be more
forgetful of others, while females on average are innately
designed to empathise, to communicate, and to care for others."
Two points need to be made here:
- The particular "ghost" that is mentioned above is the
ghost of Feminism -- the ghost that says that women
are just as good at everything as men are (except where women
are better);
- It is obvious that the ability to systemise and analyse is much
more useful for high-level positions in the workplace than the ability
to empathise, to communicate, and to care for others.
So it is Feminism that has inflicted this undemocratic censorship ghost
on us, and it is Feminism that has imposed sex-based Equal Employment
Opportunities and Affirmative Action policies
on us. If Equal Employment Opportunities means that everyone has the
same opportunity to get a job which their abilities suit them for, then
it must surely be a good thing. However, it often seems to mean that
pressure will be applied to get more women (and selected other groups)
into jobs than would get there on merit alone.
Equal Employment Opportunities policies are often deliberately vague,
but the basic idea seems to be that, if a male and a female candidate
are equally qualified for a particular job, the female candidate will
be selected, if there are fewer females than males in that workplace.
This is incoherent, because my impression is that two candiates are
never exactly equally qualified for a particular job:
there are so many different qualifications and experiences listed on
most people's cv's, and so many different impressions that interviewers
glean from the selection interview, that one candidate almost always
has the edge over the others. So Equal Employment
Opportunities policies actually have the result that less qualified
women are preferred over more qualified men -- otherwise there would
be no change in the over-all male-female ratios in that workplace, because
there are never any situations where candidates are equally qualified
!
