Open Letter to Politicians, Judges, Educationists and Clergy. 29jan02
|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.
(T H Aldridge)
Mr Chris Caswell
Director of Research
Economic and Social Reasearch Council
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.
(T H Aldridge)