Categories: Bad Science

I rarely read the AGE Sunday magazine these days, and the last time I dipped into it it, it exceeded all expectations for Terrible. Blue Milk and Eglantine’s Cake have already written about the article by Sarina Lewis on “The Invisible Men”: Men are actually doing more domestic work now than women, did you know? Not just that, but they don’t get any appreciation for it!

Well – not quite. Now, I’m not saying a food writer can’t write convincingly about gender politics. Look at Crazybrave Zoe and Twisty at IBTP. But unfortunately, it doesn’t look as if Lewis will take this topic to their level of excellence.

Yet figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics bear out a startlingly even spread of domestic and professional labour: a 2006 study into how Australians used their time found that men spent a combined average (over seven days) of 11.44 hours per day performing professional, childcare and domestic tasks. And women? They came in at a combined average of 11.35 hours – nine minutes less than the men.

All credible studies, from the ABS (including more up-to-date information), the Australian Institute of Family Studies and HILDA surveys, tell us what we already know: women still do the bulk of domestic work, whether working or not. Notice how Lewis slipped the “professional” in there? That’s not part of the domestic load. It’s paid work which goes on the CV and contributes to your superannuation.

And as you begin to take on more of the domestic load, even where your share – minus Lewis’s numerical massage – is less than half, guess what? It’s tiring! Which is a bit of a shock. And kind of demeaning, because it is ballbreaking for men to do housework, which is coded female. So we get sad, sad pictures like this

bizarre image of a very dapper young man in beautiful suit holding a mop and looking poetically sad, oh how low he has sunk

…Why is he “holding” the mop like that? Is the ignominy of it all so crushing he has to appear entirely bemused by it? Is he a store dummy? Why is he wearing a nice suit to do the housework?

And this (from the Daily Mail in the UK)

Bad woman sits reading newspaper while her poor, poor male partner does the vaccuuming around her. Abuser!

Gah! You can see how hellish life has become for these poor, poor men! And according to Lewis, not a word of appreciation!

“There is a legitimate desire from men to be acknowledged,” says Jones, who suggests that the modern man’s role in society is vastly different from that of his father…Feelings of neglect arise, they say, when the stresses and strains of their lives – now as complex as those of their wives – go unnoticed.

Ok, about the appreciation thing. It goes back to the same principle as referring to the bloke’s contribution as “help” – the notion that the woman still owns the domestic load with a limited potential to delegate, rather than the man taking on an equal share of the responsibility, including the planning and remembering component. I’m not against partners giving each other appreciation, of course, it’s wonderful. But it’s assumed, to some extent, that a mature adult will perform certain tasks on a fairly regular basis. As far as women getting more appreciation: really? We still assume, even in 2010, that a mother is going to do various boring household tasks without being thanked for it – apart from the ritual “thank”fest and Hallmark card on Mothers day. Or as Rebekka said here, “they’re kidding, right?”

Expecting recognition for day-to-day housework is an indication that you believe your role in that housework constitutes a heroic act above and beyond the call of duty.

Guys, welcome to our world. Yes, you may find it frustrating and annoying at times. We certainly have.
 
 
 
Crossposted

What an excellent coincidence that this post should spring up in the Femmostroppo Reader just as I had this one nearly ready to go: OH HAI Naomi Mc, have I got an example for you! In the same week that, in Melbourne alone, two men set a woman and a girl on fire (the second man also raped the girl) there was a report in the ABC News opining that again, society is going down the tubes because of feminism. With a big, scary, hot pink feminist symbol! Brrr.

A senior lecturer in psychology at Charles Darwin University, Dr Peter Forster, says there is no truth to the argument that testosterone levels make men more aggressive.
He says social factors such as the rise of feminism in the last few decades could be behind the rise in violence amongst women.

I’m happy to give him points for biology not being destiny – a refreshing change from most antifeminists I’ve read – but what actual evidence does he have that the “rise of feminism” has kicked off a rise in violence among women? Has he demonstrated that there is a rise in female violence?
Has he told us what the increase(s) are and from what bases they’ve increased? No. Has he teased out increases in actual violence from increases in arrests and charges? Nope. Has he looked at whether violence overall is rising or static, and if so, is male violence rising as well (See also previous point)? No.

Has he mentioned that if you look at historical sources of milieux such as Victorian London and accounts of colonial Australia, the idea of women as gentle and delicate creatures who never threw a punch was somewhat class-based? No.

I went off in search of more information, because I thought that if the ABC had seen fit to publish an article about Dr Forster pronouncing on women and violence, it must be that Dr Forster and/or his department had come up with some ground breaking research, perhaps resulting in a report or peer-reviewed paper which we could read.

Apparently not. In fact, my usually effective google-fu hasn’t unearthed any publications or reports put out by Dr Forster on women, violence, or women-and-violence at all. So what’s he got?

…(P)eople were now looking at other contributing factors, particularly at social and cultural factors such as the effects of several decades of feminism which have largely removed the expectation that women would behave differently to men, and, more recently, the binge-drinking culture among young people, for the rapid rise in female violence.

“Studies have shown that at the age of 14, girls were just as likely as boys to be involved in fights, threats and stealing,” he said.

“This is supported by studies at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, where they have found similar rates of binge drinking by men and women, and women are also catching up in the use of illicit drugs, and these behaviours are linked with aggression.

“People” are looking at contributing factors. “Studies” have shown. I’ve seen undergraduate essays, let alone blogs, with more demonstrated evidence – and active verbs – than that. Well, there is a citation of sorts, the AIHW, which does exist, although would it kill him to point to the studies themselves? And there doesn’t appear to be anything to do with women and violence, but women and “behaviours (which) are linked with aggression.” Right! Men binge drink and set women on fire and king-hit other men on King street, while women binge drink and “get themselves” raped. See, equal!

The only actual piece of work done within the walls of Charles Darwin University that he seems to be able to point to is a study of road rage by his colleague Mary Morris.

“The research by Dr Morris has clearly shown that, in such aspects of road rage as aggressive gestures, sounding their horn at another driver and verbal abuse, there is no significant difference between male and female drivers. There used to be differences, but not any more,” Dr Forster said.

Road rage covers a continuum up to and including stabbing, shooting, thumping and running over people, so I don’t see that an increase in female horn-sounding and verbal abuse is very useful evidence of an epidemic of violent femmes. I haven’t been able to find Dr Morris’s study either, but I’ll take his word that it exists, so that’s one more on the topic than I’ve been able to find for Forster. It’s ironic that given that the subject is the evil power of feminism, he took her work and ran with it as “Expert Warns”.

Dr Forster hasn’t even begun to demonstrate any link between feminism and violence.

I have no idea why this should have been put out as a media release by CDU and why it should have been news, but unfortunately it’s one more brick in the wall of the bullshit “Feminism gone wrong” story that the media is hellbent on giving us, no matter how dodgy the source might be.

My earworm of the week has been Near You by Dwight Yoakam. But I can’t find a YouTube for that, so I’m posting links to interesting youtubes other people have found lately.

Pavlov’s Cat links to a chilling piece of Southern Gothic by Bobbie Gentry. I’m loving the set design. The little guitar is interesting. Words and chords here.

Boynton shows us Masterchef, 1941. One of those young gels is going to have to do a pressure test, for sure.

And Tigtog gives us a typical hospital emergency scene, featuring doctors who are, er… very highly… trained.

Update: How could I have forgotten this? Erk. Double erk. But as Barista would say, “strangely compelling“.

Image of \"eve\" with an apple and snake, to illustrate the fact that sexual assault and simple bad sex is All Wimmins Fault.
Urrrgh!

I noticed an article in today’s SMH about yet another survey about sexual culture and mores which, of course, is in no way influenced by gender stereotypes.

Sex-education classes are failing to teach young women the skills they need to resist having sex they will later regret, an academic has said…

…Often neglected was the importance of teaching young women negotiation skills so that they could resist pressure from their peer group and partners.

Researchers at the University of Western Australia interviewed 68 girls aged 14 to 19 about the first time they had sex.

Read the whole article. What is missing here? Yup, that would be boys. And men.

I’m so sick of this deeply-entrenched idea that it’s is the responsibility of women and girls to police the boundaries of sexual behaviour and that, as we’ve seen in the Matthew Johns furore, men and boys are simply aggregations of brainless erectile material that can only be corralled, never asked to take responsibility themselves. As I’ve said elsewhere, and many have said before me, that view isn’t particularly complimentary to boys, is it?

I’m all for teaching girls to be more assertive, naturally. It comes with the territory of feminism. But not where it’s intended merely to compensate for boys’ bad behaviour. Why didn’t this study advocate behaviour modification as a necessary element in sex education for boys? Why can’t sex education address the rape myths and other toxic elements in our culture that keep the same bad things happening year after year?

As the events of the last few weeks have shown us, again, it’s not all about the girls.

(Update: H/T to Lauredhel for the totally-not-blaming-girls image, found on a page displaying the same article in the Independent Weekly.)

 
 
 
Crossposted at Hoyden About Town

Gianna Jessen with priests outside Parliament House, Victoria

This is a strange image for Victoria in 2008: The man of science flanked by religion and what can only be called, without a shadow of hyperbole, the Patriarchy. And embracing (literally) US religious fundamentalism.

I’ve mentioned Bag News Notes before, the blog which analyses images from the US news. I’d love to hear what they would have to say about this image.

The bill to decriminalise abortion – giving the decision to the woman up to 24 weeks and requiring two doctors’ signoff afterwards – is before the Victorian parliament. And the coverage by the local broadsheet, the AGE, has been appalling. (State political editor Paul Austin, I’m looking at you.) Today there was a report of a head-smackingly awful development, made worse by a headline that misrepresents the facts completely:

Top Scientist says ‘No’ to Abortion Bill

* Nick Miller and Leo Shanahan
* September 2, 2008

LATE-TERM abortion “survivor” Gianna Jessen will address a meeting at Victoria’s Parliament House in a bid to sway politicians over proposed abortion laws.
The meeting will also hear from Victorian scientist and surgeon Graeme Clark, inventor of the bionic ear.
The 2004 Australian Father of the Year will tell the meeting that he is not anti-abortion in all circumstances, but he believes the proposed Victorian law is not the best solution.
Under the bill, which has the support of Premier John Brumby but not some members of his cabinet, abortions will be decriminalised up to 24 weeks and after that will be legal if approved by at least two doctors.
The meeting was arranged by an inter-faith religious group and all Victorian MPs are invited.
Ms Jessen arrived in Canberra yesterday to lobby senators to support a separate bill, proposed by Liberal senator Guy Barnett, that would result in the abolition of Medicare funding for abortions conducted between 14 and 26 weeks.
Ms Jessen, who has cerebral palsy as a result of being deprived of oxygen during a botched abortion at 7½ months, will put her case to senators over the next two days….

First of all, do you see what they did there? The byline gives the clear impression that a Top Scientist has come up with some, you know, scientific reason for not decriminalising abortion. If you read the article, it’s nothing of the kind. He’s one of two celebrity speakers engaged by the godbag lobby group the Australian Christian Lobby, and he’s speaking as an ordinary (if celebrated) citizen who is personally squicked by the idea of abortion, even though he isn’t even 100% against it.

Second, Guy Barnett’s medicare bill. I’ll get around to that I hope, but tonight I’m mainly concerned about the “meeting” itself. And thirdly, again, they’ve managed to make the debate “about” late-term abortion – which is the rarest kind and may even get more rare once women don’t have to jump through legalistic hoops to have an earlier one.

It’s simply pandering to the religious right by the Victorian parliament. What can possibly be the Brumby government’s excuse? OK, some questions for you, Mr Brumby:

*Even if it’s sponsored by an outside group, this must be consuming Parliamentary resources (venue, catering) and the time of government and opposition MPs, whose salaries we pay. What is the cost of this meeting going to be?
*Why does the Australian Christian Lobby get to hold this meeting at Parliament house? Surely this is according them rights above and beyond the normal ability of community groups to protest tabled legislation. Other groups, like the anti-pipe protesters and Blue Wedges, have been snubbed and also sued by this government. Why the preferential treatment?
*Will a pro-choice organisation, such as ProChoice Vic., be invited to conduct a similar meeting with speakers of their choice, so as to provide some balance?

Some information about the godbags organising this thing:

Two other organisations that both began in 1995 with a Christian right focus and agenda were the Australian Christian Coalition, now known as the Australian Christian Lobby, and Salt Shakers. The Australian Christian Lobby has its headquarters in Canberra with State Offices, whilst Salt Shakers has a single office in Melbourne. Over time the Australian Christian Lobby has moved from the political right to a centre right position whilst Salt Shakers has not. Both have had their wins and losses over the 11 years that they have been operating.

Gianna Jessen is a singer who works the lecture circuit as an anti-abortion agitator with a unique selling point: she’s a late abortion survivor with cerebral palsy. Now I know that having cerebral palsy sucks mightily, and she would naturally have issues with her biological mother. However, unlike many people with CP in this country, she has made a nice little earner out of her vanishingly rare situation; here’s her booking agent. She wouldn’t be speaking for free; presumably the ACL paid for her. They should have also had to pay for a venue of their own instead of being given a forum in our (supposedly) democratic Houses of Parliament.

So, what should be a parliamentary debate is being biased by forced-birther organisations with money and influence. Not happy, John (Brumby).

A bottle of Taylors Shiraz will probably remain intact while reversed over by a medium to large family station wagon.

The bag of oranges and the carton of milk, on the other hand, will be history.

Here’s a real head-scratcher for you: This article, by Elizabeth Farrelly, author of Blubberland.

After following a winding path through contemporary women artists (narcissists), feminists, who have “often wanted it both ways” (contradict themselves, don’t know what they want) and Germaine Greer (“Owns” the subject of feminism and sexuality), Farrelly ends with Mills and Boon and the bodice-ripper genre in general:

In Mills & Boon-land, they want to be wanted so much that neither the rampant male nor the unwilling female can keep the passion in check. The romance is there, but it is there to eroticise the sex. As writer Julie Bindel notes, there is “in every book a scene where the heroine is ‘broken in’, both emotionally and physically, by the hero”.

This is the origin of the rape fantasy, the urge to be “cavemanned”, which most women feel now and then. Traditional feminists such as Bindel deplore it as misogynistic propaganda while “pro-sex” post-feminists such as Daisy Cummins (herself an M&B author) find it intensely enjoyable. Two hundred million readers, mostly female, think she’s right.

Both are wrong- denial on the one hand, subjugation on the other. And both are right. There are evolutionary “reasons” for the rape fantasy- for the female to be overpowered inclines her to the strongest sperm, and the strongest offspring. So Cummins versus Bindel might be seen less as a problem requiring resolution than the age-old clash between our propelling primate brain and our civilising neo-cortex, to be seen, understood and even enjoyed.

Yet another demonstration, then, that most things, thank God power and sex included- are more complicated than they seem. To give is also to receive, to oppress is also to be oppressed.

I don’t really know what this has to do with the main premise of the article, which is that women visual artists are narcissists – is it something to do with taking these narcissistic women down a peg? And the two quoted writers are not exactly the alpha and omega of world feminism and its many ideas on sexuality, are they?

I cringe when I think how hurtful and insulting this stuff must be for women who have actually been raped, but I also want to draw your attention to the way Farrelly oh-so-casually drops “evolutionary reasons” into that paragraph. As many people will know who read academic, science and feminist blogs, EvPsych is a stream of academic thought which is beleaguered with badly designed studies, bias, long-bow-drawing and the fictional “just-so stories”, as some people call them. It doesn’t seem as rife here in the Australian media as it is in the US, where every second lifestyle article seems to want to justify gender constructs as originating from life on the “savannah” or something to do with mammoths or sabre-tooth tigers – most originating from a second-hand reading of studies which were discredited years ago.

It’s not a good sign that another strain of pseudoscientific garbage is creeping into the Australian arena. Just another wheelbarrowload of shit for Australian feminists to shovel.

To say, as one M&B writer does, that “I imagine in all women, deep down inside us, is a primitive desire to be arrogantly bullied”, is not to voice some deep unacknowledged sociological truth. It’s a manifestation of a need for psychological help, however much it might give her the edge in rape-fiction writing.

As for Farrelly’s concluding sentence,

It’s the kind of paradox that absolutely characterises woman, which is why male orthodoxy has always found her so threatening. Hence the burqa, the witch-hunt, the ducking stool. But my question, for all those oppressors out there, is this. If we’re the cat meat, who’s the pussy?

Definitely a head-scratcher. But I’m still going to avoid the seraglio, thanks.

The title is from the article linked above.

16 Dec 2007, Comments Off

AGE op-eds again

Author: Helen

OK, so I whinge about the AGE op-ed pages a lot. I realise the Australian (formerly the Government Gazette) and the Hun are full of horrors, too. It’s just that the AGE is my daily dead-tree read of choice, and as a consumer I feel the need for some of that fact-checking and investigative journalism on which the MSM so prides itself.

I just think it’s a worry when the AGE publishes a long article in the op-ed section giving the public the case for nuclear power, and that article is bought in wholesale from a known nuclear- and fossil-fuel industry lobbyist.

It’s a worry when that writer is identified at the end of the article thus: Dr Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, and chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies. Which might cause the busy time-poor reader to conclude that not only does this guy really have Greenpeace’s measure, but he is still, well, really green. A kind of loyal and more respectable opposition, if you like.

It’s a worry that Patrick Moore is also co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy coalition, “a public relations campaign for new reactors launched April 24, 2006, funded by the trade association, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and headed by former Bush Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Christine Todd Whitman and former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore”. In short, a front group for the Nuclear Energy Institute.

It’s a worry that Moore’s lobbying groups have used the Burson Marseller PR group, which has been involved in other astroturf campaigns for Phillip Morris and the forestry industry in Canada, as well as PR for Blackwater USA and the Argentinian junta. (“People get killed everywhere,” Moore is recorded as saying.) It’s a worry that Moore’s record of astroturfing activities on behalf of the fossil fuel and forestry industries– as well as other popular anti-environmental hobbyhorses like DDT– is as long as your arm.

Tim Lambert sheds more light on why a concern for global warming probably isn’t the motivation behind Moore’s boosterism.

It’s a worry that the AGE, which I’m sure prides itself on its investigative journalism, buys these drop-in modular-unit articles, presumably because of cost cutting, so that instead of investigation and analysis, we get corporate funded propaganda.

Hat tip to Jason Leske, an anonymous stirrer from Quinceland, who wrote into the letters page pointing this out.

 
 
 
Crossposted at Road to Surfdom

My brother rang me last night foaming about a piece he’d seen in the Sunday paper about Pastor Peter Curtis, Federal Liberal candidate for Lalor. That’s Julia Gillard’s seat, so this affable Barney Rubble lookalike hasn’t a hope in hell, pardon the expression, Pastor. My brother’s upset because the northern suburbs are kind of a spiritual home to him, and he’s looking to move back there soon – Preston or Thornbury. [Update: He's safe, because as a kindly commenter on Road to Surfdom pointed out, the suburb of Lalor and the seat of Lalor are two different pancakes, and the seat of Lalor is a bit further south and to the west. Phew.]

It was interesting to put a face to the name, because he’s a prolific nutter who’s been getting letters published in the AGE letters page year after year, espousing wonderful Christian values like rabid homophobia, returning Australia to its rightful place in the 1950s and hearty Howard-hugging. The first and last item may seem like a contradiction, but this man contains multitudes.

FEDERAL Liberal candidate Pastor Peter Curtis says homosexuality is a perversion and that gay men die from disease at many times the rate of heterosexuals.

BUT,

Standing for the second time as the Liberals’ candidate in the safe Labor seat of Lalor against Labor’s deputy leader Julia Gillard, Mr Curtis said he was still hoping gays and lesbians would vote for him.

Rightyo. Good luck with that.

But be not smug, heteros; he shall make thy offspring study questionable DVDs from Discovery and crap published by Answers in Genesis, or similar…

He said that, if elected, he would be urging the Liberal Party to introduce intelligent design to state school science classes. Intelligent design is an assertion that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by natural selection.

“I would be very much in favour of intelligent design being taught in public schools,” Mr Curtis said. “Just as the theory of evolution is taught as well — in my view regrettably taught in science classes, because I think it’s a theory and not a science.”

What is it about the no-talent bums the Liberals are putting up in the Labor held seats, my brother moaned. He would like to know whether
(a) that’s all the talent the Liberal party grass roots has to offer
(b) it’s a deliberate insult to the citizens in safe seats who they know are going to vote Labor anyway?

As you can imagine, I could only nod and commiserate with him, but I have no real explanation of the phenomenon, except that Mr Curtis’s candidacy fits the current Liberal love affair with US-style Christian wingnuts, as exemplified by Danny Nalliah, the fun crowd at Hillsong, Tony Abbot’s friend George and of course the Exclusive Brethren.

It may be that a US-style Christian Right may never take off in Australia, but at the moment they’re getting wayyy too much encouragement.
 
 
 
Crossposted at Road to Surfdom