Archive for the ‘Gender’ Category
‘Social justice’ is a key identifying phrase, a shibboleth, for liberal/progressives. Conservatives are assumed not to care about social justice, being concerned only with making money and reducing taxes.
Then why is it that conservatives give more to charity, and are more likely to be involved in their communities as volunteer fire fighters, ambulance officers, etc?
Informaworld has an interesting article on social justice from a conservative perspective.
Bruce Thyer points out that conservatives are just as concerned about social justice. We just differ about how the best results are to be achieved.
But in Australia, women are paid as much as men for the same work. It’s the law.
Nonetheless, on average, women do earn slightly less than men. The ASU wants this fixed. It’s unjust!
But the difference is not because women are victims of discrimination. It is simply because they make different choices.
Women tend to opt for safer, more comfortable jobs, jobs that have predictable hours and involve less travelling. They are more likely to work part-time, and to retire earlier.
More at Carpe Diem, including this, from a report prepared for US Department of Labor:
‘The differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.’
Proof of psychic powers? Actually, no.
Just proof that academics are not easily able to think beyond their preconceived notions.
He conducted nine different experiments on over 1000 students. Eight of the experiments showed some psychic ability.
I am willing to bet that the experiment that didn’t was the only one that was properly designed.
One experiment asked students to memorise a list of words, and then asked them to recall as many as they could.
The students were then asked to type a list of the words randomly selected – which tended to be the words they had earlier recalled.
It suggests they knew which words were going to be selected to be typed.
No it doesn’t.
The question is, how were the words to be typed selected ‘randomly’?
If they were just picked by another person, all this means is that some words have more impact than others, and that those words are more likely to be remembered, and chosen.
It is amazing to me – a non academic, but someone trained in problem solving – how quickly academics jump to the wrong conclusion, and how firmly they then insist on those conclusions being accepted.
I have a friend who is a PhD candidate. She is studying changes in Black Brim populations. Black Brim are a common fish in South Australian waters.
Her thesis is that Black Brim numbers have declined over the last fifty years because of changes in water quality.
She is extraordinarily diligent in examining ear bones from Black Brim. This enables her to track changes in water quality over the life of the fish.
I have no doubt she can get an accurate picture of water quality over the life of any individual fish.
But there are three problems with her thesis.
She has no idea how many Black Brim there really were fifty years ago. There were no accurate counts.
She has no idea whether water quality now has deteriorated in ways that affect Black Brim compared with fifty years ago. There were no accurate measures.
She has no idea whether other factors (eg, fish just move) might account for changes in Black Brim populations in the small area she is studying.
I asked her, since her theory was that fish numbers had declined because of changes in water quality, whether she thought it important to have accurate measurements of fish numbers and water quality from fifty years ago.
She insisted it was OK, because she had accurate measures of fish numbers and water quality now.
But surely, I insisted, if she was claiming changes in fish numbers over fifty years were a result of changes in water quality, she had to know what the numbers and water quality were fifty years ago.
She told me she could measure changes in water quality through studying ear bones.
OK. That tells you about changes over the life of an individual fish, but nothing about what the starting point was fifty years ago.
Nope. She just didn’t seem to understand the question.
Well, it doesn’t matter, really. She’ll get her PhD and work for Natural Resources and ruin a few fishermen’s businesses, or spend her life telling farmers to use less fertiliser.
Not much harm done.
But lots of harm is done in other ways.
As an example, there are reduced rates of HIV infection in males who have been circumcised.
So of course there claims that male circumcision acts as a ‘vaccine’ against HIV infection.
A couple of days ago the Deputy Speaker of the Ugandan parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, called on male MPs to be circumcised to give a moral example to others, and to help reduce the rate of HIV infection.
It seems blindlingly obvious to me that many men who are circumcised are either Jews or Muslims, and that differences in sexual behaviour in those groups would better account for the very small measured differences in rates of HIV infection.
Certainly behavioural differences might be worth investigating before spending vast amounts of money ramping up ‘circumcision services.’
This won’t work. It is cruel and irresponsible. In fact, like dishing out condoms, it is likely to increase rates of HIV infection, because it encourages people to think they are safe.
The only thing that has been shown to make a long term difference to rates of HIV infection is changes in behaviour.
But that is an unacceptable conclusion, so Africans continue to be given advice which is known to be, or should be known to be, wrong. And more Africans die.
Africa has suffered enough from AIDS.
We have all suffered enough from the consequences of shoddy thinking.
The Age reports that:
A Melbourne private girls’ school that prevented a lesbian student from attending the school formal with her girlfriend is being inundated with messages from irate readers around the world accusing the school of discrimination.
A private school, at a private dance for its students, should be forced to allow a sixteen year old to bring her fifteen year old sex partner?
Sadly, but not surprisingly, given the Age’s ever decreasing demographic, the school is being accused of homophobia, discrimination, etc, while the girl and her parents are presented as victims of moralising conservatism.
The only thing the girl and her parents are victims of is a bit of common sense and decency.
The People’s Republic of San Francisco has decreed that happiness is no longer permitted. At least, not in the form of happy meals. Or any other meals that include toys and TOO MANY CALORIES. Such meals are now banned.
Meanwhile, back in less ‘liberal’ and consequently, less authoritarian, Australia, a professor of health education and nutrition has pointed out that fears about childhood obesity have been exaggerated by the media. She goes on to say that restrictions on the availability of junk food will do lttle to resolve the problems that do exist:
“People have to stop exaggerating the numbers about childhood obesity – that’s not to say that it is not an issue but you know, hysteria, fear campaigns and exaggeration are not very scientific,” said Dr O’Dea.
Professor O’Dea also points out that childhood obesity is largely a problem for the poor. Tackling poverty, she suggests, is the best long-term way to tackle childhood obesity and many other children’s health issues.
But it seems to me that childhood obesity is evidence of one of the key attitudes that keeps some people poor.
There is nothing wrong with take aways as an occasional treat. But good quality day to day food; fresh fruit, vegetables, milk, fish, lean meat, etc, is cheaper than McDonalds or KFC.
Of course, such meals take a little longer to prepare, and need some thinking in advance.
So if take away food (take-out if you’re an American) is more expensive, why do people on low incomes eat more of it?
It is easy to claim that poverty is caused by structural injustices. And some is. The anti-development policies of organisations like Greenpeace, and their lobbying of governments and organisations like the Word Bank, have kept incomes and life spans in some third world countries much lower than they would otherwise be.
But in wealthy western countries this is less often the case. Poverty, and the disadvantages to children it causes, cannot be changed by acts of government.
‘The poor will be with you always’ Mt 26:11
Nurses nationwide are banned from flirting with patients after the number of complaints about nurses with professional boundary issues tripled in 2009.
Tripled! Oh gosh. What an appalling problem. Those nurses are just going nuts. Sex crazed poodles the lot of them.
Except that in 2009 there were a total of 17 complaints in New South Wales. No mention of how many of those were found to have any substance. A major problem? Hardly.
Nurses who cross the line will be disciplined. Can I help? Oops, sorry.
Of course there need to be professional boundaries. And people who are unwell are perhaps particularly susceptible to emotional manipulation.
But I doubt a long list of rules formulated by a bureaucracy is going to hinder the very small number of nurses, male or female, who are inclined to take advantage of their patients, or more commnonly, I suspect, make a joke or off the cuff comment which someone finds offensive or takes the wrong way.
And this is just ridiculous: Nurses must also keep an eye out for any patients developing a crush, as failing to recognise attraction of a sexual nature is also considered sexual misconduct or assault.
Not being aware that someone finds you attractive is an offence? An assault? For heaven’s sake, get a grip.
With the boundaries of what marriage means being vigorously stretched, this comes as no surprise:
“Age 30 is a prime period for me. My work and experience are in good shape, but I haven’t found a partner, so what can I do?” Chen said.
“I’m not anti-marriage. I just hope that I can express a different idea within the bounds of a tradition.”
Ah, yes. The old ‘different idea within the bounds of a tradition’ trick.
Sadly, Taiwanese law discriminates against such unions, and Ms Chen’s marriage will not be recognised by the state.
But I say, if one person truly loves herself, then why not?
Amidst the general left wing media outrage (‘small-minded’, ‘ignorant’, ‘bigoted’ are frequently occurring words) at the prosecution of two young people in Queensland who attempted to abort their baby, I came across this review of the film Never Let Me Go.
Never Let Me Go traces the story of three apparently normal young people who discover they are clones produced to provide spare parts.
In the end they accept their own destruction and dismantlement for parts, even thought this means they are not regarded as human, and that they only have value for the convenience they provide for someone else.
They accept this despite the fact that they think, feel, love, because ‘In fact, love doesn’t conquer all, and the clones don’t fight back, because they’ve been infected with the kind of belief that already is poisoning our society: the belief that humans created in a lab are lesser beings who can be sacrificed for the greater good. These young men and women give up their lives for a misguided idea–the idea that for them to be treated as humans, with worth and value of their own, would be to take all of humanity back to a time of “darkness.”
The Island was a well made 2005 Hollywood film on the same theme. ‘We have a product.’
You can’t be a bloke if you don’t respect women. But ask a group of women if they respect men and you will likely be greeeted with hoots of derisive laughter.
Not true of all women, of course, but true of more than it should be.
Interesting, and not unexpected, then, the instant castigation of footballers and men in general after the latest accusations of sexual assault against some Collingwood players. More work is needed! Players need more sensitivity training! Men are bastards!
I saw one comment by a woman connected with a sexual assault centre to the effect (I couldn’t find it again later) that even if women were throwing themselves at footballers, the footballers needed to behave appropriately.
She didn’t elaborate as to what she thought the appropriate behaviour might be.
But given the currently popular ‘casual shagging does no one any harm and is probably healthy’ opinion of most women’s magazines and popular shows like Sex in the City, it is hard to see why any bloke should not think that the appropriate form of behaviour in any circumstances where a woman is asking for sex is simply to let her have it.
To suggest, as that person did, and as others have, that only men should be responsible for their decisions, and that if a woman later regrets what she has done, the man is the one at fault, is to treat women as lesser beings – more like children than adults.
This is not respectful of women, and it does not encourage respect for women.
Even when both are drunk, and meaningful consent cannot be given, responsibility lies with both, not just with the man, even if he is a footballer.
Of course, life would a lot simpler if people kept sex for marriage. Casual sex devalues both men and women, and makes it easier for persons of both genders to see persons of the other as simply means to an end – their own pleasure. This really means treating a sexual partner as nothing more than a masturbation aid.
Some men do think this way. Anyone who has seen Sex and City, and seen how popular that show is, and how some of its stars are regarded as role models(!) knows that women are capable of thinking this way too.
The harm this way of thinking and acting causes to individual men and women (and their offspring) and to gender relationships and understanding, seems to me to be simply obvious.
Also obvious is the fact that easy availability of contraception, especially the pill, and the easy availability of abortion, has encouraged this ‘if it feels good, do it’ mentality, a disregard of (or deliberate ignoring of) the consequences of sexual activity, and a deepening disregard for the different emotional needs of men and women, and for their value as persons.
Freely available contraception has not enhanced the lives or status of women.
Of course this should have been, and was, clear from the beginning. The Catholic faith said so, and so did sommon sense. Cardinal Pell has recently made these points with his usual no nonsense clarity.
Incidentally, Cardinal Pell points out, and rightly, that the Christian consensus on this matter was first broken by the Anglican Church at the Lambeth Conference in 1930 – the point from which, in my view, the Anglican Communion could no longer claim only to teach and practice the faith once delivered to the saints, and at which it began to come loose from its moorings in Scripture and Tradition in ways that are now disastrously obvious.
But the truth is ever unpopular, especially amongst those whose theme song is ‘I want to, so dont’ tell me it’s wrong.’
The week’s Weekend Australian Magazine contains a mercifully short article by Susan Maushart called ‘The Bitter Pell.’
I have met Cardinal Pell, and enjoyed several minutes of conversation with him about Anglican – Roman Catholic relations. He is far from bitter. In fact, he struck me as a person of very considerable intellect, who is driven both by a passion for truth, and compassion for those harmed by the lack of it. He certainly was willing to listen respectfully to views which differed from his own.
Susan Maushart, however, gives every impression of harboring deep bitterness against anyone who holds views that do not co-incide with hers.
Her article contains no reasonable arguments at all, just a series of cheap shots about the Chruch and the faith, even including a mention of the inquisition, for heaven’s sake.
The best way to earn respect is to give it. It can be a hard lesson to learn.
An interesting article from Kelsey Grammer’s Rightnetwork from a home schooling journalist.
Just a sample:
Academically, we couldn’t help but observe that our fourteen-year-old son was made to watch My Big Fat, Greek Wedding in English class because they’re supposed to be studying Homer — and Homer’s Greek, you know; or notice that he’s seen Al Gore’s carbon footprint infomercial four times already, once each in four different classes; discover that none of the teachers or administrators can spell or operate a sentence, never mind the students, but they’ve seen Supersize Me twice already; or see that all his textless textbooks looked like a cross between a comic book and a collage. Such things indicated that nothing serious was ever going to happen in school. As far as behavior goes, we’ve had enough experience with both sons now to know that males of the species are simply not welcome in public school. That was Samuel Burgos’ real crime. He acted like a little boy, and that’s not allowed. His parents should embrace it, and never send him back. That’s what we’ve done, and we couldn’t be happier.
Student Tyler Clementi committed sucide after being videoed having gay sex.
He was the fourth gay teen suicide in the US this month. The national LGBT community is reeling.
The bullying must stop! Gays must be given equal rights now!
That’s the approved narrative.
But actual events do not support that interpretation of Tyler Clementi’s death. He was aware he had been taped, and didn’t seem that bothered by it. Remarkably unbothered, in fact, compared with how I would feel if someone had surreptitiously made a sex tape featuring me.
The gay lobby is using this young man’s suicide to gain political advantage, as they did with the death of Matthew Shepard.
The approved narrative was that Matthew was murdered simply because he was gay.
The reality is that his death had nothing to do with his sexual orientation. He was killed by two drug addicts, one of whom was known to him (Shepard was also a heavy drug user) in a robbery that went wrong.
There seems to be an instant assumption by Ellen DeGeneres and other ‘being gay is my career’ minor celebrities that the murder or suicide of any person who has ever had gay sex, or ever spoken about gay sex, must have happened because they were gay.
That is not only nonsense, it is insulting. Homosexual people live lives as varied as anyone else.
Their lives are no less likely than those of any other citizen to intersect with people who are cruel or dangerous. More likely in the case of Matthew Shepard, who was both indiscriminately sexually active, and a drug abuser.
To claim these deaths for political purposes disregards other aspects of the lives of the victims. It makes them one dimensional, cardboard cutouts suitable for placards, not real people.
It is cynical and exploitative.
She goes out of her way to look attractive. Her employers reward her for looking attractive.
But woe betide any man who finds her attractive.
NFL security officials are investigating the conduct of New York Jets players after complaints by Reporter Ines Sainz that players wolf whistled and hooted at her when she interviewed team members in their locker room.
This is she:
So let me get this straight.
A woman who goes out of her way to look attractive to men goes into a locker room where men are getting changed, having showers, etc, and then is outraged and her feelings hurt because some of the players whistle at her?
This comment from Lori Ziganto:
She chooses to look attractive. She wants to look attractive. Being attractive is, in fact, part of her image and it is actively pursued by her employer and Sainz herself. Yet, we are to be outrageously outraged – when men find her attractive? Here’s an estrogen-insider secret for all the politically correct, totally aghast at human nature people: most women want to feel pretty and they want to hear you say it. Hence, her clothing that accentuates all her, um, “positives.” It doesn’t make men evil and it doesn’t somehow magically remove the woman’s ability to do her job.
Teachable Moment: If you truly don’t want to be ogled and whistled at, don’t, you know, go into a male locker room sporting a camel toe.
Seeing Stephanie Rice sobbing her way through an apology for using the word faggot, acknowledging her dreadfulness, her betrayal of the Soviet everyone’s trust in her, and affirming that she really did love big brother gay people of all shapes and sizes, and everyone of any sexual preference at all, you might have thought you were watching a remake of 1984.
And then Jaguar dumped her.
Poor girl. She had the honesty poor sense to say publicly what was almost certainly said privately in a number of Australian households when the Wallabies won a last minute victory over South Africa. Namely, Yay! Suck on that, faggots.
Poor taste? Sure. Inappropriate? Maybe. But the game was pretty exciting, and a bit of gloating was entirely justified.
How do a few words uttered, or even tweeted, in the heat of the monent, justify demonizing and publicly humiliating a hard working and kind-hearted young woman?
She, and her agent, should have just told the professional offendees to sod off.
There are more important things in the world to be upset about.
And I’m glad I got rid of my Daimler. It was probably the worst engineered car I have ever owned.
So suck on that, . . .
There is no getting around reality.
Someone decides it is insulting to call people whose intellectual development has been retarded ‘retarded.’ So we are told to call them ‘intellectually handicapped.’
Soon ‘intellectually handicapped’ becomes a form of insult. So we are told to call them ‘slow learners.’
A couple of years later, every time you want to insult your mates you say ‘Looking like a slow learner there Joe!’
So that term naturally becomes unacceptable, and anyone who has ever used it is obviously insensitive and uncaring.
Let’s call them ‘special children’ instead. Let’s have ‘special schools’ for ‘special children.’
Scene in schoolyard: ‘You’re a special child!’ ‘I am not. I’m telling.’
There is no getting around reality.
So when you are no longer supposed to call homosexuals homosexuals because that might be insulting, and instead you are supposed to call them ‘gay,’ what is going to happen to that word?
Any school teacher can tell you that the worst possible insult in the playground is beng called gay. You can say someone is lame, you can insult his mother, or her father. But but if one child calls another child gay, be prepared for trouble.
Whether being gay really is gay, I don’t know. Most homosexuals of my acquaintance don’t demonstrate a a high level of satisfaction with their lives, so I suspect it might be.
But they really are gay, the ones who objected to principal Garry Martin’s replacing the word ‘gay’ in the Kookaburra song with the word ‘fun.’
Firstly, when the song was written ‘gay’ pretty much meant fun. Remember The Gay Divorcee? OK, there aren’t many of them either. Or the Gay Nineties? Not the recent nineties, the ones before?
No? Well, you know what I mean.
Before the word gay, a good word, was hijacked, it meant happy, light-hearted, fun.
Now it just means gay.
Marion Sinclair meant that a kookaburra’s life was carefree, fun. So Principal Garry was being true to the original text. And Kookaburra, fun to sing though it is, is not Shakespeare.
Secondly, this was about children singing. Children singing. Children, at school, singing together.
The word gay is an extreme insult in the playground. So naturally the kids were rolling around the floor laughing when asked to sing about a gay kookaburra.
So why not do the sensible thing and replace the word ‘gay’ with the word ‘fun?’
Garry describes what he was thinking:
“I wasn’t trying to incite or insult gay people, or trying to violate the copyright of Larrikin Music; it was just a decision at the time that I thought would minimise a disruptive atmosphere with grades one and and two.”
But after a controversy in which it has been suggested he is trying to make gay people invisible:
In an interview on the Nine Network, Mr Martin was backtracking on his decision, saying that perhaps he should have discussed the true meaning of the word with the children.
So Garry now thinks he would have been doing the right thing if he discussed homosexuality with year ones and twos?
No, Garry no. You were right the first time.
And not radical islamists?
Given that Sarah is an attractive, powerful, intelligent woman who is successful in her own right and has challenged and beaten corrupt men and corporations?
And that she doesn’t believe, for example:
- Women are inferior to men.
- Women should have fewer rights and responsibilities than Larry the Cable Guy.
- Women count for one-half of a dude in giving evidence in a court of law.
- Women should be horse whipped if they ever make their husband feel like a dork.
- Victoria’s Secret Miraculous Bra (with extreme level 5 cleavage) makes God angry.
- Women can’t say squat in regard to whom they’ll marry, what they’ll wear, where they’ll live, or whether or not they can divorce their cheating and/or abusive husband.
- Girls can be wed beginning at the ripe old age of frickin’ nine.
- Women should be cool with hubby having a couple of hoochies or female slaves on the side.
- Women, on the pretext of “honor,” should be locked up, isolated and unable to have a girls’ night out at Mango’s on Ocean Drive.
While radical islamists do believe those things, and are earnest about putting them into practice, to the point of killing people who disagree.
It’s a mystery.
I am not normally given to swearing, but honestly, for f&#%’s sake.
As if you needed another one, reason number 126,475 never to go into an Anglican church again.
According to the article, they met and fell in love at a Christian conference in Togo.
And don’t they look lovely together:
Really, for f&#%’s sake.