Not only do Feminists get public money to carry out
so-called "research" into legal and other issues which is politically
biased -- many of these researchers do not even try to be objective.
The following prominent New Zealand Feminist
researchers, as a bare minimum, come into that category: Joanne Morris OBE
( a former Law Commissioner), Ruth Busch, Neville Robertson and Hilary Lapsley.
The publication which apparently was most influential
in the passing of the Domestic Violence Act 1995, which robbed
men of their right to Natural Justice, was Protection from Family
Violence*, which was written on the basis of work by
Busch, Robertson and Lapsley. On page 25, this publication states: "It
is now widely recognised that 'objective' data is largely a myth...."
This work relies, instead, on a subjective assessment of archival material,
interviews with selected people, including women's refuge workers, and submissions
from women who had experience of how the law dealt with domestic violence
in practice. It is noteworthy that it included no input
from men's rights activists or men who had experience of how the law dealt
with domestic violence in practice
Similarly, the methodological Appendix to Women's Access to Legal Services**,
by Morris, states (on page 268) that "... neither qualitative nor quantitative
research is 'objective'." This belief is inconsistent with her paper's
statement (on page 1) that a justice system should:
be just in the results it delivers;
be fair in the way it treats litigants.
Feminists do not seem to have the intellectual capacity to avoid contradicting
themselves, and Western men have lost the courage to demand ( a difficult
task, admittedly !) that women reason logically. But it is obviously impossible
for a justice system to be just and fair if you can't rely on the objectivity
of research -- to some extent, anyway.
In fact, Morris simply ignored the submissions of Men's Rights submitters
such as myself, and went on to produce such a biased draft report that even
the Law Commission (hotbed of Feminist politics that it is) created a historical
precedent by refusing to publish it under its own name.
So it seems, from the above two examples, that the
notion that objectivity is a "myth" (a favourite Feminist
word) amounts to nothing more or less than a justification for the usual Feminist
practice of ignoring men's points of view, men's needs and men's rights.
The history of philosophy is full of discussions of various points of view
on the issue of objective knowledge about the World. This is not a new issue
-- nor has this ongoing discussion been resolved by consensus in the way the
above authors pretend. There is more available than just a simple choice between
saying that objectivity is real and saying that it is a myth -- there is also
the possibility of saying that objectivity is possibleto some
extent, and that the publication of of rival research helps
society as a whole to get close to objectivity. This, in fact, is the working
hypothesis that underlies the vast majority of research in the World today.
What is more fundamental than objective knowledge is the rules of logic.
Researchers cannot be allowed to contradict themselves and maintain credibility
by mere (Feminist) political pressure. If someone believes
that there is no such thing as objective research, then they should stop doing
research, because otherwise they are contradicting themselves.
In practice, moreover, as we have seen above, doing research while denying
the possibility of doing it objectively has the practical result of allowing
you to be more blatantly subjective than you would allow yourself to be if
you believed that it was possible to be objective. People
who believe that objectivity is impossible should stop researching, because
their research will be super-subjective.
As I mentioned in connection with child discipline,
the Neuroscience article "Sex differences in functional activation
patterns revealed by increased emotion processing demands***"
shows that men's and women's brains process emotional stimuli in different
ways. It states:
"These findings suggest that men tend to modulate their reaction
to stimuli, and engage in analysis and association, whereas women tend to
draw more on primary emotional reference."
To put it simply, women have evolved to get emotional about things, and
men have evolved to be rational.
It is no accident that the above Feminist authors
are anti-objective in theory and in practice: women's brains are not designed
A woman's place is in the home. If some women have more "objective"
brains than some men, then exceptions can be made in appropriate cases, so
as to prevent the frustration of a few intelligent women which is what created
Feminism 200 or so years ago. But societies require objectivity, and those
which lose their objectivity through female domination will simply not survive.
*Protection from Family
Violence: A Study of Protection Orders Under the Domestic
Protection Act 1982 (Abridged), Victims Task Force 1992, Commissioned
by the Victims Task Force and prepared for public release from an original
report by Ruth Busch, Neville Robertson and Hilary Lapsley, University of
**Study Paper 1: Women's Access to Legal Services:
Women's Access to Justice, He Putanga Moo Ngaa Waahine ki te Tika by
Joanne Morris, Law Commission, Wellington: June 1999.
***by Geoffrey B.C. Hall, Sandra F. Wittelson, Henry
Szechtman and Claude Nahmias, in Neuroreport Vol. 15 2004, pp 219-223.