Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Heart - A Marxist Victim Feminist with a mission

One of many blogs operated by Marxist styled victim feminists critiquing Ms. Hoff Summers article and my comments left behind. http://www.womensspace.org/phpBB2/2009/06/30/persistent-myths-of-christina-hoff-sommers/

About

SpinWheel.jpg

This is the Womens Space blog. I’m Heart, and I created the Women’s Space sites, Women’s Space, this blog. The Carnival of Radical Feminists blog and Quiverfull. In my old world I published Gentle Spirit Magazine. Women’s Space is anti-subordination, anti-violence and committed to justice for women and for all people.

Heart



So you are one of the feminist supremacists who believe the end justifies the means. Truth is a byproduct of serendipity in your world. Thanks for your info. You will be entered into the annals of Victim Feminist Central as a propagandist in the same vain as all those other ideologies who have claimed moral or religious supremacy but, of course, never survive given time. Its a pity that otherwise intelligent people get caught up in ideological wastelands not unlike some religions who portend they are the superior means of getting to heaven. Your Marxist sensibilities create personal prisons that you then lock your self into. In any event no one can change an ideologues viewpoint - not even the truth. Its too bad you had such a bad experience, perhaps with daddy was it, that you believe all this drivel you write and then get reinforcement from other sisters with daddy issues. One of your sisters, Amananta, (nice choice of name) believes the wage gap isn't 76 cents but rather and I quote:

"The 76-78 cents (depends on the study) on the dollar is what women who work full time make in comparison to what men who work full time make.
When you factor in mothers and women who take care of elderly family members, in other words, comparing all working women to all working men, women make THIRTY EIGHT CENTS to every dollar a man makes.
THIRTY EIGHT CENTS."

Gee why not just compare all non-working women to all working men and then you can say women don't get paid at all.

What I find interesting about most of these victim feminist bloggers is they don't have the gonads to self identify by their name. It kinda helps credibility if they did that.

Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship





Articles & Commentary

Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship
By Christina Hoff Sommers
Chronicle of Higher Education
Monday, June 29, 2009


"Harder to kill than a vampire." That is what the sociologist Joel Best calls a bad statistic. But, as I have discovered over the years, among false statistics the hardest of all to slay are those promoted by feminist professors. Consider what happened recently when I sent an e-mail message to the Berkeley law professor Nancy K. D. Lemon pointing out that the highly praised textbook that she edited, Domestic Violence Law (second edition, Thomson/West, 2005), contained errors.

Her reply began:

"I appreciate and share your concern for veracity in all of our scholarship. However, I would expect a colleague who is genuinely concerned about such matters to contact me directly and give me a chance to respond before launching a public attack on me and my work, and then contacting me after the fact."

The critical work of 21st-century feminism will be to help women in the developing world, especially in Muslim societies, in their struggle for basic rights.

I confess: I had indeed publicly criticized Lemon's book, in campus lectures and in a post on FeministLawProfessors.com. I had always thought that that was the usual practice of intellectual argument. Disagreement is aired, error corrected, truth affirmed. Indeed, I was moved to write to her because of the deep consternation of law students who had attended my lectures: If authoritative textbooks contain errors, how are students to know whether they are being educated or indoctrinated? Lemon's book has been in law-school classrooms for years.

One reason that feminist scholarship contains hard-to-kill falsehoods is that reasonable, evidence-backed criticism is regarded as a personal attack.

Lemon's Domestic Violence Law is organized as a conventional law-school casebook--a collection of judicial opinions, statutes, and articles selected, edited, and commented upon by the author. The first selection, written by Cheryl Ward Smith (no institutional affiliation is given), offers students a historical perspective on domestic-violence law. According to Ward:

"The history of women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. . . . The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as 'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe."

Where to begin? How about with the fact that Romulus of Rome never existed. He is a figure in Roman mythology--the son of Mars, nursed by a wolf. Problem 2: The phrase "rule of thumb" did not originate with any law about wife beating, nor has anyone ever been able to locate any such law. It is now widely regarded as a myth, even among feminist professors.

A few pages later, in a selection by Joan Zorza, a domestic-violence expert, students read, "The March of Dimes found that women battered during pregnancy have more than twice the rate of miscarriages and give birth to more babies with more defects than women who may suffer from any immunizable illness or disease." Not true. When I recently read Zorza's assertion to Richard P. Leavitt, director of science information at the March of Dimes, he replied, "That is a total error on the part of the author. There was no such study." The myth started in the early 1990s, he explained, and resurfaces every few years.

Zorza also informs readers that "between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of domestic violence." Studies by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, indicate that the figure is closer to 1 percent.

Few students would guess that the Lemon book is anything less than reliable. The University of California at Berkeley's online faculty profile of Lemon hails it as the "premiere" text of the genre. It is part of a leading casebook series, published by Thomson/West, whose board of academic advisers, prominently listed next to the title page, includes many eminent law professors.

I mentioned these problems in my message to Lemon. She replied:

"I have looked into your assertions and requested documentation from Joan Zorza regarding the March of Dimes study and the statistics on battered women in emergency rooms. She provided both of these promptly."

If that's the case, Zorza and Lemon might share their documentation with Leavitt, of the March of Dimes, who is emphatic that it does not exist. They might also contact the Centers for Disease Control statistician Janey Hsiao, who wrote to me that "among ED [Emergency Department] visits made by females, the percent of having physical abuse by spouse or partner is 0.02 percent in 2003 and 0.01 percent in 2005."

Here is what Lemon says about Cheryl Ward Smith's essay on Romulus and the rule of thumb:

"I made a few minor editorial changes in the Smith piece so that it is more accurate. However, overall it appeared to be correct."

A few minor editorial changes? Students deserve better. So do women victimized by violence.

Feminist misinformation is pervasive. In their eye-opening book, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies (Lexington Books, 2003), the professors Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge describe the "sea of propaganda" that overwhelms the contemporary feminist classroom. The formidable Christine Rosen (formerly Stolba), in her 2002 report on the five leading women's-studies textbooks, found them rife with falsehoods, half-truths, and "deliberately misleading sisterly sophistries." Are there serious scholars in women's studies? Yes, of course. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an anthropologist at the University of California at Davis; Janet Zollinger Giele, a sociologist at Brandeis; and Anne Mellor, a literary scholar at UCLA, to name just three, are models of academic excellence and integrity. But they are the exception. Lemon's book typifies the departmental mind-set.

Consider The Penguin Atlas of Women in the World (2008), by the feminist scholar Joni Seager, chair of the Hunter College geography department. Now in its fourth edition, Seager's atlas was named "reference book of the year" by the American Library Association when it was published. "Nobody should be without this book," says the feminist icon Gloria Steinem. "A wealth of fascinating information," enthuses The Washington Post. Fascinating, maybe. But the information is misleading and, at least in one instance, flat-out false.

One color-coded map illustrates how women are kept "in their place" by restrictions on their mobility, dress, and behavior. Somehow the United States comes out looking as bad in this respect as Somalia, Uganda, Yemen, Niger, and Libya. All are coded with the same shade of green to indicate places where "patriarchal assumptions" operate in "potent combination with fundamentalist religious interpretations." Seager's logic? She notes that in parts of Uganda, a man can claim an unmarried woman as his wife by raping her. The United States gets the same low rating on Seager's charts because, she notes, "State legislators enacted 301 anti-abortion measures between 1995 and 2001." Never mind that the Ugandan practice is barbaric, that U.S. abortion law is exceptionally liberal among the nations of the world, and that the activism and controversy surrounding the issue of abortion in the United States is a sign of a vigorous free democracy working out its disagreements.

On another map, the United States gets the same rating for domestic violence as Uganda and Haiti. Seager backs up that verdict with that erroneous and ubiquitous emergency-room factoid: "22 percent-35 percent of women who visit a hospital emergency room do so because of domestic violence."

The critical work of 21st-century feminism will be to help women in the developing world, especially in Muslim societies, in their struggle for basic rights. False depictions of the United States as an oppressive "patriarchy" are a ludicrous distraction. If American women are as oppressed as Ugandan women, then American feminists would be right to focus on their domestic travails and let the Ugandan women fend for themselves.

All books have mistakes, so why pick on the feminists? My complaint with feminist research is not so much that the authors make mistakes; it is that the mistakes are impervious to reasoned criticism. They do not get corrected. The authors are passionately committed to the proposition that American women are oppressed and under siege. The scholars seize and hold on for dear life to any piece of data that appears to corroborate their dire worldview. At the same time, any critic who attempts to correct the false assumptions is dismissed as a backlasher and an anti-feminist crank.

Why should it matter if a large number of professors think and say a lot of foolish and intemperate things? Here are three reasons to be concerned:

1) False assertions, hyperbole, and crying wolf undermine the credibility and effectiveness of feminism. The United States, and the world, would greatly benefit from an intellectually responsible, reality-based women's movement.

2) Over the years, the feminist fictions have made their way into public policy. They travel from the women's-studies textbooks to women's advocacy groups and then into news stories. Soon after, they are cited by concerned political leaders. President Obama recently issued an executive order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls. As he explained, "The purpose of this council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy." He and Congress are also poised to use the celebrated Title IX gender-equity law to counter discrimination not only in college athletics but also in college math and science programs, where, it is alleged, women face a "chilly climate." The president and members of Congress can cite decades of women's-studies scholarship that presents women as the have-nots of our society. Never mind that this is largely no longer true. Nearly every fact that could be marshaled to justify the formation of the White House Council on Women and Girls or the new focus of Title IX application was shaped by scholarly merchants of hype like Professors Lemon and Seager.

3) Finally, as a philosophy professor of almost 20 years, and as someone who respects rationality, objective scholarship, and intellectual integrity, I find it altogether unacceptable for distinguished university professors and prestigious publishers to disseminate falsehoods. It is offensive in itself, even without considering the harmful consequences. Obduracy in the face of reasonable criticism may be inevitable in some realms, such as partisan politics, but in academe it is an abuse of the privileges of professorship.

"Thug," "parasite," "dangerous," a "female impersonator"--those are some of the labels applied to me when I exposed specious feminist statistics in my 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? (Come to think of it, none of my critics contacted me directly with their concerns before launching their public attacks.) According to Susan Friedman, of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, "Sommers' diachronic discourse is easily unveiled as synchronic discourse in drag. . . . She practices . . . metonymic historiography." That one hurt! But my views, as well as my metonymic historiography, are always open to correction. So I'll continue to follow the work of the academic feminists--to criticize it when it is wrong, and to learn from it when it is right.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at AEI.







You can find this article online at http://www.aei.org/article/100695

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Women’s Studies 101 ~ AKA I am a Victim Feminist Oppressed by the Patriarchy ~ HELP

Channel Icon
InternetStudiesGuy

A 29 year old Swiss male


A short video in which I try to make a point on how feminism has it fundamentally wrong. None of that "There's different types of feminism" bovine feces. Feminism, despite having been a valid position as little as 50 years ago, is now doomed to be stupid and evil because of the circumstances in the modern western world. If it isn't stupid and evil, it's not feminism.

Also, check this out: It's the first part of Warren Farrel's presentation at the CATO Institute "Why Men Earn More"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_6v-...

TL;DR: Basically the pay gap (the 70-80% on the dollar that are frequently mentioned) aren't due to discrimination but due to women working part time in "self-fullfillment" types of jobs.

And yes, I love Zero Punctuation.
Category: Education



Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Baseless Bias and the New Second Sex

print logo

AMERICAN.COM

A Magazine of Ideas

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Claims of bias against women in academic science have been greatly exaggerated. Meanwhile, men are becoming the second sex in American higher education.

In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences released Beyond Bias And Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, which found “pervasive unexamined gender bias” against women in academic science. Donna Shalala, a former Clinton administration cabinet secretary, chaired the committee that wrote the report. When she spoke at a congressional hearing in October 2007, she warned that strong measures would be needed to improve the “hostile climate” women face in university science. This “crisis,” as she called it, “clearly calls for a transformation of academic institutions . . . Our nation’s future depends on it.”

While some scholars contend that ‘unconscious bias’ and persistent stereotypes are primary reasons for the paucity of women in the high echelons of math and science, others, perhaps a majority, suggest that men and women, on average, have different career interests and propensities.

The study was controversial from the beginning. John Tierney of the New York Times interviewed several researchers who dismissed it as politically driven propaganda—the “triumph of politics over science.” Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware said, “I am embarrassed that this female-dominated panel of scientists would ignore decades of scientific evidence to justify an already disproved conclusion, namely, that the sexes do not differ in career-relevant interests and abilities.”

This past Tuesday the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a non-political, objective study of women in academic science entitled Gender Difference at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering and Mathematics Faculty. The study was sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and mandated by Congress. It contradicts key findings of Beyond Bias and Barriers. According to its executive summary:

Our survey findings do indicate that, at many critical transition points in their academic careers (e.g., hiring for tenure-track and tenure positions and promotions) women appear to have fared as well as or better than men... These findings are in contrast to the COSEPUP [Shalala] committee’s general conclusions, that “women who are interested in science and engineering careers are lost at every educational transition” and the “evaluation criterion contain arbitrary and subjective components that disadvantage women.”

To give one typical finding, in the years studied, 2004 and 2005, women accounted for approximately 20 percent of applicants for positions in mathematics, but were 28 percent of those interviewed and 32 percent of those who received job offers. Furthermore, once women attained jobs in math or science programs, their teaching loads and research resources were comparable to men’s. Female full professors were paid, on average, 8 percent less than males. But the committee attributed this to the fact that the senior male professors had more years of experience. There were no differences in salaries for male and female assistant and associate professors. “I don’t think we would have anticipated that in so many areas that there would have been such a balance in opportunities for men and women,” said Dr. Sally Shaywitz, Yale University research scientist and co-chair of the committee that wrote the report.

The new study does not claim that women have achieved parity with men. It found, for example, that women with Ph.D.s in math and science are far less likely than men to pursue a career at a research-intensive university. Why should that be? The report does not say, but suggests it would be an important question to pursue. In fact, there is now a lively and growing literature on gender and vocation. While some scholars contend that “unconscious bias” and persistent stereotypes are primary reasons for the paucity of women in the high echelons of math and science, others, perhaps a majority, suggest that men and women, on average, have different career interests and propensities. (AEI Press will soon be publishing The Science on Women and Science, a collection of articles by scholars who argue different sides of this issue.)

The unfortunate news is that this objective new study has come after the Bias and Barriers report has already accomplished its purpose. Congress has authorized NSF to spend millions of dollars on anti-bias programs.

The unfortunate news is that this temperate, well-reasoned, and objective new NAS study has come after the Shalala/Bias and Barriers report has already accomplished its purpose. Many members of Congress from both parties (especially Republican Congressman Vernon Ehlers and Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Barbara Boxer) were electrified by the Bias and Barriers report—as well as by the volumes of highly tendentious advocacy research that preceded it (see my “Why Can’t A Woman Be More Like a Man?”). Congress has already authorized NSF to spend millions of dollars on anti-bias programs, and instructed federal agencies such as NASA and the Department of Education to begin stringent Title IX gender equity reviews of science programs in the nation’s universities. These expensive and aggressive policies and programs were put in place without any genuine evidence that sexist bias against women in academic science is actually a problem.

Members of Congress who are concerned about gender equity should take a look at what is happening in the academy as a whole. University of Michigan economist Mark Perry, using Department of Education data, has prepared this useful chart:

Sommers Graph

Perry shows that men are now on the wrong side of the degree gap at every stage of education. Here are his figures for the class of 2009:

Associate’s degrees: 167 for women for every 100 for men.

Bachelor’s degrees: 142 for women for every 100 for men.

Master’s degrees: 159 for women for every 100 for men.

Professional degrees: 104 for women for every 100 for men.

Doctoral degrees: 107 for women for every 100 for men.

Degrees at all levels: 148 for women for every 100 for men.

Education Department projections though 2017 show a worsening picture for men with every passing year. If there is a crisis in the academy that merits a congressional investigation, it is not that women Ph.D.s are being shortchanged in math and science hiring and tenure committees, for that is not true. It is that men are quickly becoming the second sex in American education.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image by Darren Wamboldt/Bergman Group.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/june/baseless-bias-and-the-new-second-sex/

Friday, June 5, 2009

Men's Rights Groups' Lawsuits Against Battered Women's Shelters - Teleconference

I came across this little ditty on a Victim Feminist site. http://advocatetrainings.blogspot.com/2009/06/mens-rights-groups-lawsuits-against.html It strikes me as odd in many ways that tax dollars are being used to actively promote discrimination against 50% of the population but then nothing surprises me anymore. Hell they can even get credits for the teleconference. If this were a visible minority or just reverse genders and postulate on the outcome. Note also this victim feminist claims to work in a Sheriff's department. The deck sure must be stacked against men there and the co-sponsor is the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), the largest membership organization of professional social workers in the world with 152,000 members and 56 chapters in the United States and abroad. Isn't this just a little bit worrisome given the nature of their work. Note we have a Canadian female Professor involved from the OIT in Oshawa. The only thing missing here are the white sheets of the KKK. This is bitter irony because they don't see how they are viewed, they just know they have a mission in their war on men.

The sponsors are the Jewish Women International here http://www.jwi.org/site/c.okLWJ3MPKtH/b.5207705/k.B67B/June_18_2009_Men8217s_Rights_Groups8217_Lawsuits_Against_Battered_Women8217s_Shelters.htm

Here is a portion of the post:

Men's Rights Groups' Lawsuits Against Battered Women's Shelters - Teleconference

Men's Rights Groups' Lawsuits Against Battered Women's Shelters
Thursday, June 18, 2009
12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time

The teleconference is being hosted by Jewish Women International and the link is here

REGISTER NOW

No charge for members, $25 for non-members
Learn more about National Alliance membership

Each participant is required to pre-register.

You may not be aware that there have been multiple lawsuits brought by anti-feminist "men's rights" groups against battered women's shelters and the state agencies that fund them in the United States. Each of these lawsuits essentially claims "reverse discrimination" in services tailored to battered women, alongside the often-repeated assertion that women are as violent as men.

Although most of these cases have failed completely, one recent case in California was partly successful. Whether successful or not, these lawsuits drain time and money from service providers and states.

This teleconference will explain the history and nature of the lawsuits and the legal concept of Equal Protection at their core. You will learn how to protect yourself against such lawsuits without compromising the quality and integrity of services you already provide, and which resources you can draw upon in the event of a lawsuit in your state.

Agenda:

Overview of the problem
Understanding the Equal Protection Clause
American Law Suits brought by Men's Rights Groups
Minnesota
California (2)
Maine
West Virginia (in process)
Implications, how to protect yourselves, resources
Leading the discussion:

Dr. Molly Dragiewicz is Assistant Professor of Criminology, Justice & Policy Studies at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Canada. She has published articles about the anti-feminist fathers' rights movement and the California equal protection lawsuit. Dr. Dragiewicz is currently writing a book about the first equal protection lawsuit against battered women's shelters in Minnesota.

Here's some background on this Victim Feminist Advocate who is a self-proclaimed watchdog on Fathers Rights Groups and she has her own website also linked below:

Dr. Molly Dragiewicz

Title: Assistant Professor

Research interests: Violence and gender, anti-feminist fathers' rights groups, battering and child custody, and human trafficking

Biography

Dr. Molly Dragiewicz received her Ph.D. in Cultural Studies from George Mason University. She joined the faculty of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies in 2006. She teaches qualitative methods courses, Domestic Violence, an Advanced Justice Studies course on human trafficking, and Policy Analysis in Justice Studies.

In addition, Dr. Dragiewicz supervises students with an interest in violence and gender for honours, independent study, and practicum placement.



Nancy Lemon, J.D., is a UC Berkeley Law lecturer, and leading authority on domestic violence for more than 20 years. She is an advocate and practicing attorney working with victims, police, public agencies and community organizations. She has drafted legislation for victims of domestic violence their children and immigrant women. Ms Lemon wrote the first textbook on Domestic Violence and the Law. She was recently selected to receive an Outstanding Women of Berkeley Award.

Who should attend?

This comprehensive and innovative learning experience is for attorneys • social workers • therapists • DV service providers and advocates • children's advocates • child protection workers • child abuse service providers • professional and scholars who work on intimate partner violence, child abuse, child custody, or family law policy • physicians • nurses • physician assistants • nursing and medical students • practicing healthcare providers • school personnel • family court evaluators.

Co-sponsored by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), the largest membership organization of professional social workers in the world with 152,000 members and 56 chapters in the United States and abroad. One CE contact hour is available for social workers for $10; instructions will be given on the call.