Women's Brains and the Feminist "Research" Scam

New Zealand Equality Education Foundation

(incorporating the International Ex-Fetus Association)

Women's Brains and the Feminist "Research" Scam

© Peter Zohrab 2006

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.

Reality

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.

Choices

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 possible to 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.

Brains

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 for objectivity.

Conclusion

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 Waikato.

**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.