New Zealand Equality Education Foundation
(incorporating the International Ex-Fetus Association)
Stupidity is a Sex-War Issue (1)
© Peter Zohrab 2005
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Stupidity is a Sex-War issue !
There is a lot that can be said about this, and I have already written something on this issue: See, for example, dumbfemi.html , femathom.html and stupidt2.html. Stupidity, with regard to logical reasoning, is something that I have noticed particularly in the legal fraternity and in females -- which makes it unsurprising that the legal fraternity is now increasingly made up of women. It is this stupidity which allows women and the legal fraternity to believe Feminist dogma without being appalled by its stupidity.
Below is a short, one-question questionnaire I passed out to students of the International Trade Law class of the Victoria University of Wellington Law Faculty in December 2004. Not only do the results of the questionnaire demonstrate that almost 20% of the respondents are stupid, but the comments written on this particular copy (as well as on some others) also demonstrate the primitive mentality of some Law students -- probably the same 20% !
Paul Zoubkov is a Leftist who had expressed the view in a previous class (Jurisprudence) that he abhored anything written by me. Nevertheless, I thought his presentation in International Trade Law class on how the First World deliberately exploited the Third World quite plausible, on the surface. I did not know anything about the issue, but was willing to keep an open mind.
However, being a typical Leftist, he had to mouthe a platitude about at least one other member of the Rainbow Coalition -- namely women. All that he said about women (at the end of one section) was:
"There is evidence that women are more disadvantaged than men in developing countries." (N.B. One respondent suggested that he had said "Evidence suggests", rather than "There is evidence", and this may well be true, but it is irrelevant to my point.)
The breakdown of the 39 responses (there was not a large response in proportion to the class as a whole) was:
My point is that merely to say that there is evidence suggesting something, without stating the evidence and also stating the counter-evidence, should not have any effect whatsoever on one's belief about that issue -- especially in the case of Law students. It was pleasing that 56% of respondents saw it that way.
However, the fact that almost 20% of the respondent Law students said that that statement strengthened their belief ties in with such facts as the following:
- I almost never heard the word "intelligence" mentioned at Law School;
- There were no classes in reasoning or Philosophy;
- The Jurisprudence lecturer, Grant Morris, didn't realise that you had to have evidence for the statement that Domestic Violence was a purely women's issue;
- None of the brightest students in my last year at High School were
going to study Law.
* Needless to say, I am not claiming statistical validity for these results, in the sense of trying to extrapolate them to the class as a whole, or to the law student population as a whole, or to lawyers in general. However, the results suggest that there is an issue worthy of further research here. The legal profession is an immensely powerful one, as fathers have found to their cost. If -- for genetic or educational reasons -- lawyers really do have limited reasoning abilities, this is a serious social issue.
**Strictly speaking, it is just as illogical to say that the statement in question proves that women are NOT more disadvantaged as it is to say that it proves the opposite. However, while there seems to be an plausible explanation (i.e. irrational belief) for thinking that it proves they are more disadvantaged, there is no obvious explanation for why anyone would be so perverse as to say it actually proves the opposite.