Thursday, April 26, 2007

In brief

Some recent items of interest:

Losers of the sexual revolution by Miranda Devine. Miranda Devine complains, rightly I think, that:

Mutual respect between the sexes, romance and a legacy of chivalry by men entranced by the feminine mystique have been trashed in the name of female equality and sexual liberation.

It was assumed, under the terms of autonomy theory, that the removal of impediments to sexual behaviour would liberate women. In practice there have been a number of negative consequences. Autonomy theorists failed to consider, amongst other things, that traditional moral restraints might have had a positive, protective function.

Migration 'tipping point reached'. A British think-tank has warned that the "seemingly reckless pace and scale" of immigration into the UK could fracture the sense of national identity. The shadow home secretary has called for a cap on the numbers of those arriving.

To those arguing that Britain has always been a nation of immigrants the author of the report replies that,

The view that Britain is a nation of immigrants suggests Britain has always experienced immigration on its present scale from time immemorial, which is by no means the case.

Another article debunking the myth of Britain as a nation of immigrants is The great deception by Sir Andrew Green. This article points out that since 1066 there have only been two significant waves of immigration into Britain, the first by the Huguenots which represented a 1% addition to the population and another by eastern European Jews representing a 0.5% addition.

Leo McKinstry has written an article describing his love for traditional England and his sadness at its passing. He objects to the Government's insistence that:

I should be embracing cultural diversity, not clinging to an England that is being systematically demolished. To me this is a morally reprehensible argument. If you genuinely love something then it is grotesque to be asked to celebrate its demise.

Hat tip: Lawrence Auster

Teen dope users 'life's future losers'. According to Professor Patton, who has conducted research on cannabis users for Melbourne University,

the overwhelming evidence was that cannabis was "the drug for life's future losers".

Couch entitlement presents evidence, drawn from data from 25 countries, that when paid work and domestic work are combined men and women spend the same amount of time each day working. The idea that women work longer hours than men is a myth.

Most child abusers are women. A report by Child Protection Queensland 2005-06 has found that women were responsible for 55.5% of cases of child abuse. Patriarchy theorists won't like this finding as it undermines the idea that domestic violence is a result of a patriarchal social structure in which men commit violence against women and children as an expression of control and dominance. This theory doesn't explain very well the fact that women are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence against children than men are.

Sex & the footy. Some myths, though, are being actively perpetuated. In a front page article in The Age Angela Williams claimed that:

One in three women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. The greatest cause of injury and death in women under 45 is not cancer or accidents or drugs, it's the men who purport to love them.

Patriarchy theorists use such bogus statistics to advance the idea that violence against women is "systemic" - that it stems from the very structure and culture of society.

Last year I did an investigation into the claim that the greatest cause of death for young Australian women is domestic violence.

Of course, it proved to be false. In 2004 in Australia by far the biggest killer of young Australian women was cancer (673 deaths). Then followed suicide (238) and car accidents (215). Deaths by external causes totalled 290, but this includes accidental deaths such as drowning, burns, falls etc. So there is no way that the claim that domestic violence is the largest killer of young women can be correct.

As for the rate of violence, about 1.3% of Australian women will experience violence at the hands of their partner in the course of a year. Drunkenness is a factor in about half of these cases. Throwing around figures of 30% of women suffering sexual assault (or, in the case of Swedish feminist academic Eva Lundgren, claiming that 50% of Swedish women are the victims of male violence and that men kill hundreds of Swedish babies in Satanic rituals) creates an overly negative picture of male attitudes to women.

Finally, let me give a plug for the Australian Traditionalist Conservative Network.


  1. I can see the argument already that the "true numbers of domestic violence is hidden because women are afraid to speak out".

  2. Lets not forget that these (let me be charitable here) 'ladies' - are the ones who define 'violence' through law.

    If violence can now encompass someone raising their voice to you (ie. 'Emotional violence') - then you can see how the statistics might get skewed to rediculous numbers.


  3. By controlling language, feminists and other 'progressivists' (a misnomer if ever there was one) can 'prove' whatever reality suits them. George Orwell was right.

  4. Steve Sailor also has a look at that question of the genetics of Britons here.