Saturday, September 10, 2005

It's Now Incorrect to be Nice to Women

The sheer nuttiness of Leftists sometimes leaves me so breathless that I hardly know where to begin in pulling the nonsense apart. And here is one example of that. It is a "conference" (mutual backslapping session) to be held at the University of Wisconsin (Madison) later this month. The conference is on "Discrimination and prejudice in the 21st century". I have read the summaries of a lot of the talks to be given and, as you would expect from the title of the conference, a lot of them do seem to assume that prejudice is a fairly unitary entity. They think you can talk about "prejudice" as such. So if you dislike blacks, you will dislike homosexuals, Jews and women too. This is a very old fallacy in psychology going back at least as far as the 1950s. My own published academic research on the subject has shown that even attitudes to various racial groups are not strongly correlated. You can dislike blacks while being perfectly fine about Jews etc. So the whole conference is an exercise in group reinforcement rather than a serious attempt to grapple with what actually happens out there in the world.

Even one of the more sensible conferees, Jim Sidanius, relies on a theory (if you can call it that) called "Social Dominance Orientation" that is sheer rubbish. And if you think that description is a bit strong, read this (also to be found here).

But the prize for silliness has to go to a paper by one Peter Glick. I reproduce the summary in full below:

"Continued progress toward gender equality is hampered by beliefs that appear to "favor" women, but actually serve to legitimize inequality between the sexes. Although affectionate in tone, benevolently sexist beliefs are patronizing, characterize women as weak, and reinforce the notion that men must provide for and protect women. Thus, even though benevolently sexist beliefs correlate with evaluatively positive views of women (e.g., as pure and warm), they also correlate with hostile sexism toward women who challenge men's power (e.g., feminists) and, in cross-national comparisons, with societal indicators of gender inequality (e.g., few women in powerful roles in business and government). Although benevolent sexism is not (historically) a new development, it is particularly difficult to combat and may be the strongest remaining bastion of sexist belief. Whereas many overtly hostile sexist attitudes, such as the idea that women are inherently less intelligent than men, have been widely rejected in American culture, benevolent sexism persists, in part, because it many women find promise of male protection and provision attractive. Additionally, benevolent sexism is strongly related to cherished cultural ideals about heterosexual romance. Thus, benevolent sexism may be particularly effective at undermining women's resistance to inequality. Exposing the hidden costs of benevolent sexism is a first step toward challenging its pernicious effects."

Do you get it? Liking women and being nice and kind and chivalrous to them is all wrong! What a poor twisted soul the man must be. I think it's only the boiler-suited brigade of women who would agree with him. I guess he is just a relic of the 60s and 70s.

It's happened! Marriage to be Abolished

No. I am not writing for "The Onion". The headline above is not satire. But it's not about the USA -- yet.

When the campaign for homosexual (I refuse to misuse the word "gay") marriage took off, one of the biggest conservative concerns was that it would erode the significance and importance of normal marriage. It would get to the point where you could marry your dog or your daughter etc. And homosexual marriage is now a reality in some parts of the world. And even in the USA a halfbreed arrangement called a "civil union" is common.

It used to be said that there is no such thing as a happy farmer but it was only the weather that the farmers were complaining about. And we have since found that there is no such thing as a happy Greenie but it is only the whole modern world that Greenies want to abolish. We now see however that there is also no such thing as a happy political correctness warrior. And there is NOTHING that they will not agitate about. The old saying: "Give them an inch and they will take a mile" really applies to them. To them agitation is what it's all about. Stirring up trouble for the rest of us is how they get their kicks.

And they have leapt ahead even of what conservatives have warned about now. The taste of victory they have had over homosexual marriage has given them an idea that will REALLY upset ordinary people: Abolish marriage altogether! It's only on the drawing board in Sweden as yet but we all know how the Left worship the Swedish handout State (where a quarter of the workforce is on some sort of welfare) so it's: "Sweden today, America tomorrow". Excerpt follows:

"As Sweden's Feminist Initiative meets in Orebro on Friday for its annual general meeting, one of the group's more radical proposals has been revealed: the abolition of marriage. Instead the group, which is expected to become a fully-fledged political party following the meeting, wants a 'cohabitation law' which ignores gender - and allows for more than two people to be included. The proposal is one of the group's 'prioritised political demands' which the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet got hold of before the meeting. FI founder and board member, Tiina Rosenberg, told the paper that the group wants to create "a modern concept which does not favour and promote couples and heterosexual norms"".


And you thought I was kidding!