|
T Open
Letter to Politicians, Judges, Educationists and Clergy. 29jan02 Dear |UThe Destruction of Society by
Sexual Fallacy|u |JWe live in a society which
considers sexual differences to be unfair.
It has persuaded itself that most sexual differences do not
exist. Even the vast differences in
size and strength have been denied to employers as a reason for refusing a
woman a job which requires men's strength.
Such is the state of affairs that the military have had to carry out
research to prove that women should not be employed in front line duties and
most ordinary people look in astonishment at anyone who suggests that the
type of sexual equality which we are trying to enforce is a load of baloney. Such nonsense comes at a huge price. Family breakdown is one consequence. Under-educated children, especially boys,
under-age and teenage pregnancies, rising crime, violent crime and
drug-taking are all part of the equation.
Laws are being fixed so that men cannot defend themselves against
false accusations of rape and domestic violence. Universities have altered their examination systems so that
they can award women as many first class degrees as men. Everywhere you look, even to religion, a
false sexual dogma is causing corruption. I enclose a copy of a letter I
have sent to the Director of Research at the Economic and Social Research
Council. As you will see, I did not
know when I first wrote that this was a government funded body. My complaint at the time was that research
which found no sexual differences, either or both intellectual or physical,
could not have been properly carried out.
It has since transpired that a particular piece of research funded by
ESRC has been very substandard. By
coincidence, its very sexually damaging conclusions have been useful to the
Greater London Authority in promoting a campaign against domestic violence
which completely ignores violence by women against men and against
children. This alienation of the
sexes, the creation of an oppressor sex and a victim sex, is well in line
with the failed Marxist philosophy from which it originated. My reason for bringing this to
your attention is because you have a stake in this society and you are in a
better position than most to do something to restore sanity. Edmund Burke has been quoted a number of
times recently. He said that for evil
to flourish it was only necessary for good men [and women?] to do nothing. What are you doing? Are you one of the many who promote the
fallacies, believe the fallacies or just keep their heads down and hope the
problem will go away? I hope this letter may prompt
you, if necessary, into rethinking your position and taking a stand against
fools and rogues who try to create a fairer society by denying fact, truth
and justice. Yours sincerely, (T H Aldridge) |
|
14jan02 Mr Chris Caswell Director of Research Economic and Social Reasearch Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1UJ Dear Mr Caswill, Incompetent
or Biased Research I wrote to the ESRC on 29th October last
regarding a report in Professional Manager of a proposal for ESRC to spend
over œ17 million on research into the quality of British management. I suggested that this money could be
wasted if the research did not take into account the differences in ability
between men and women. Todate I have
received no reply. Since then I have learnt two important
facts. (1) The ESRC is funded by the government. (2) Professor Stanko's research into
domestic violence, which led to the 1 in 4 statistic splashed across GLA
consultative documents, was funded by ESRC. Elizabeth Stanko's research methods are
a gem for the case that I was making in my 29th October letter. As I understand it she fell into every
trap laid for the unwary researcher.
She asked badly considered questions, used too small a sample, was not
sufficiently random in her sampling methods and did not refer to a similar
survey which had found high levels of violence in women as well as men. She generalised from a sample of some 200
or 300 to a population of millions.
If she intended to obtain material for anti-male propaganda it was
superb. If it were intended as bona
fide social research it was pitiful. The evidence of history is that women
cannot carry out satisfactory research.
Either they do not test the foundations of their research sufficiently
rigorously, or, at some stage, they make wrong deductions. As a result the
only woman to be credited with research validated at the highest level is
Marie Curie. But that research was conducted in very close partnership with a
man, her husband. Pierre Curie was a modest man but an
expert on magnetism consulted by no lesser a scientist than Lord Kelvin. He and his brother had an invention to
their credit before he met Marie. In
the circumstances there must be grave doubt about the often cited exception
to the rule that women always go wrong somewhere in their research. A more probable conclusion is that Pierre
kept their joint research on the right track. We still await evidence that a woman can carry out valid major
research without the assistance of a man. Perhaps Stanko was not statistically
inept. But then the mind
boggles. What other explanation could
there be for her results? Why else
should she produce statistics omitting the evidence of female violence? Was she following up Germaine Greer's idea
(The Female Eunuch, chapter on Womanpower) that arguments are to be won
regardless of the facts? Was she
producing what she thought her paymaster government or her university wanted? Is there some other possible explanation? Whatever the reason for the very
substandard research, it does no credit either to Elizabeth Stanko or to
Royal Holloway. It is particularly
damaging to the idea that women have been held back in the past and are the
intellectual equals of men. But where
does the ESRC stand in all this? How
does ESRC decide who should receive taxpayers' money for research? What are its selection methods? Politicians are adamant that different
male and female brains and the much bigger and stronger male bodies do not
prevent men and women from being interchangeable in the work place. Universities are changinging their
assessment methods so that men no longer obtain more first class degrees than
women. But the idea that men and
women should have identical abilities is ridiculous. It is a denial of biological facts which
can only be bolstered by lies and by false research. It appears that it is the job of ESRC to
purchase this false research, spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money
in an exercise which is socially catastrophic. Educational standards are
declining. Management is
failing. But, instead of spending œ17
million on bogus research, the Government could improve productivity just by
abolishing the shackles of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal
Opportunities Commission. Having
substantially improved productivity at a stroke, especially in the police,
the fire service and the armed forces, and by so doing having vastly improved
child care by allowing mothers to look after their own children properly, it
could then fund some truly objective research to improve British management. Yours sincerely, (T H Aldridge) |
|
|