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 being called names, and 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 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 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. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800..' (as at May 2011)
Similarly, Feminist lawyer Wendy Davis was able to get her propaganda 2 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.'
Davis does not provide any evidence that the warning to juries which she cites was based on any fear of women's lies, in particular; it is obvious that a conviction based on anyone's uncorroborated evidence would be risky, no matter whether the witness was male or female. It is not clear, whether 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 Kanin 3 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.
The Feminist-dominated university Psychology departments would never 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 in major universities.
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 become one of the leading Feminist books on the subject of Family Violence!
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 anecdote 4:
'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 Steinmetz …. 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 courses, on 7 March 2007, a female Feminist student cited as evidence something she had learned in the course "The Psychology of Women". I responded 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.
Her position was that :
I pointed out that
What Freud actually said about women was a separate issue -- the point was that he had studied women
She was being illogical, and her inability to think logically might lead me to conclude that women could not think logically.
Although this woman was by no means the bullying type of Feminazi that I had found in Law School,
She believed lies she had been taught in a Feminist university course;
She was illogical;
She was totalitarian, in that she felt that Psychologists (e.g. Freud) were not allowed to say things about women that women did not like.
Other relevant points are that: