Which is Worse: Feminists' stupidity, or their
power in the education and legal systems and in the media?
These two issues are linked, because Feminists only get away with stupid
arguments because they intimidate non-Feminists, who are terrified of
damage to their careers.
Repetition instead of Reasoning
Borrowing from Goebbels and the advertising industry, Feminists use
the tactic of repetition of lies and half-truths to induce belief in
their propaganda.
For example, Cherry
(1995) (Kitty Genovese
and culturally embedded theorising.)1
includes 13 examples in her short article of phrases such as “violence
towards women”, in a sort of ritual mantra, without the
slightest attempt to cite statistics to show that violence towards women
is more prevalent than violence towards men – or any other reason
for ignoring violence against men. Professor
Martin Fiebert's Annotated Domestic Violence Bibliography is obviously
something she is ignorant of. This bibliography
'examines 196 scholarly investigations:
153 empirical studies and 43 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate
that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than
men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.'
Similarly, Feminist lawyer Wendy Davis was able to get her
propaganda2
published in the Feminist rag, Butterworths Family Law Journal.
One characteristic of Feminist writing on Domestic Violence is the sprinkling
around of the word myth as a substitute for reasoned argument.
I have counted 11 occurrences of this word in Davis’ article (including
the footnotes), and there are four occurrences of this word in the following
paragraph:
'The stories that women act from bad motives and are prone to
lying because of their gender are old, old myths
in society and in the law. For example the judicial practice which
required juries in rape and other sexual assault cases to be warned
that it was not safe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of
the complainant was based on this myth.
The continued promotion of these myths
by the fathers’ rights movement is not surprising. What is surprising
and of concern is the way in which these myths
appear to continue to influence discussion about the law on domestic
violence and custody and about gender bias in the Family Court.'
It seems probable, but not totally clear, that Davis is claiming that
women never lie or act from bad motives, but what is clear is that she
provides no actual evidence that bears on this matter. We are just supposed
to be satisfied by the repetition of the word myth
that whatever she disagrees with is untrue. Research by Kanin3
has shown that 40% of rape allegations were
admitted by the women making them to have been false (in the area and
period that he studied).
It is an indication of the lack of academic rigour in Feminist writing
that so many articles and books appear in print with this sort of low-level
slanging-off in them. It is quite reasonable for books and articles
to use the word myth in their titles, and then to proceed to
give evidence that something is a myth – but it is quite another
thing to use the word myth as
if it constitutes a disproof by itself, as Davis does.
I doubt that the Feminist-dominated university Psychology departments
would come to this conclusion, but it seems to me that women's ability
to reason is very limited. For example, see my article Feminist
Jurisprudence Proves that a Woman's Place is in the Home ,
which shows how Feminist self-contradiction is no bar to legal and academic
prestige and publication.
Similarly, Robert Sheaffer's review
of "The Battered Woman" by Lenore E. Walker,
states:
'The Battered Woman is unsatisfactory as a serious work, and
completely unacceptable as a foundation for family law. First, it
is profoundly unscholarly. Without objective verification of the incidents
herein described, they are nothing more than hearsay. Second, the
book does not even pretend to be objective: the woman's side, and
only the woman's side, is presented, when it is undeniable that in
a large percentage of cases, the woman initiates violence against
the man. Third, Prof. Walker's expanded definition of "battering"
that includes verbal abuse does not even address the issue of female
verbal abuse of men. Fourth, there is no reason whatsoever to believe
that Prof. Walker's sample of "battered women" is in any way a representative
sample, and even if it were, she presents no statistics to support
her conclusions. In fact, most of her conclusions are utterly unsupported
by any kind of data, and are simply pronounced ex cathedra.'
It is typical of Feminism that this kind of rubbish
is not only taken seriously by Feminists -- it has actually been one
of the leading Feminist publications on the subject of Family Violence!
Bullying
This unacademic slanging-off is inseparable from the totalitarian attitude
to academic freedom which is adopted by Feminazis in the education system.
This low level of reasoning is only made possible by the intimidation
carried out by Feminism as a political movement. Richard Gelles, for
example, recounts the following anecdote4:
'A year or so later I was in the audience
when my colleague Murray Straus presented the results of a study on
which we had collaborated with Suzanne Steimetz …. The study
included data on violence by women towards their husbands or male
partners. Straus was unable to complete his presentation because the
yells and shouts from members of the audience drove him from the stage.
To even discuss female offenders, I was told later, could only undermine
the case for battered women. Straus, who also considers himself a
feminist, was, in his own words … “excommunicated”
from the mainstream feminist community. He was rarely invited to speak
at conferences on wife abuse, many of the speeches he gave were boycotted,
and he has received threats, including death threats, over the past
15 years!'
I have had similar experiences of totalitarian behaviour by Feminist
law students and even by one law lecturer. If you state something that
Feminazis consider to be a myth in the so-called “academic”
atmosphere of a modern Western university, you get shouted down, so
most people (including lecturers) are intimidated into just saying what
they think they will be allowed to say. It is important to note that
we do not live in “free” societies if such behaviour occurs
in our universities, which are supposed to be the ultimate sources of
the information we rely on to make our decisions as citizens of democratic
countries.
Moreover, universities produce graduates who go on to become powerful
in Society -- even if it is only at the level of (for example) writing
Psychological reports for parents seeking access to or custody of children
after separation or divorce. If these people have been brainwashed by
Feminism at university (as most of them have), then Feminist prejudices
will colour their reports in a way that may induce courts to decide
against fathers. Other areas that such graduates go into that are very
powerful are personnel departments, where they influence hiring, training,
promotion, redundancy, and firing policies.
Stupidity and Bullying
I have to pinch myself every time that I think about two New Zealand
universities that I know very well: Victoria University of Wellington
and Massey University. Can such lunacy be possible,
I ask myself. Victoria University of Wellington appears to think
that it has "mainstreamed" Feminism, as well as having courses
in Women's Studies -- but none in Men's Studies. Not only is this totalitarian
in itself and a contradiction of the ideals of academic freedom and
democracy, but this totalitarianism expresses itself in a very concrete
way: the Psychology department there has banned the teaching of Freud,
and it once even advertised to prospective students the fact that it
did not teach the theories of "Victorian" Psychologists! The
reason for this, of course, is that Feminists do not like some of the
things that Freud said about women!
Having long been interested in Psychology, I started studying it at
Massey University. I stumbled across Feminism even when choosing what
papers to study, because I had to avoid one paper called "The Psychology
of Women", since it would obviously be full of Feminist propaganda.
Needless to say, there was no paper called "The Psychology of Men."
As was the case when I studied Law at Victoria University of Wellington,
I found that papers such as "Feminist Jurisprudence" and "The
Psychology of Women" either attracted or converted a lot of students,
creating a core of Feminist believers who would try to make life difficult
for actively non-Feminist fellow-students, such as myself.
Most of my Psychology study has been extramural (by correspondence),
but I have had to take some face-to-face courses. In one of these, on
7 March 2007, a female Feminist student cited as evidence something
she had learned in the course "The Psychology of Women". I
said that you couldn't believe what you were taught in a course like
that. She asked why that was. I replied that courses like that taught
lies.
She said that :
