Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Sexism in Science

"The director of the Royal Institution was made redundant last week because her contract made it almost impossible to remove her any other way, it has been claimed.

Sources in the science community said scrapping the position was the only way to make Baroness Greenfield leave the financially struggling organisation.

The peer persuaded the trustees to spend £22million refurbishing the Georgian Mayfair base of the RI in an attempt to turn it into the “Groucho Club for science”. The ambitious project failed and the RI is now reported to be £3 million in debt."


It seems she has brought this august institution to its knees. This is gross financial incompetence by a leader. How can she not expect to be fired after that? What kind of contract does she have in which she cannot be fired? Can I please have one?

The right course of action for her would have been to resign after the financial disaster she apparently engineered. But instead she is suing - and, surprise, surprise, playing the sexism card.

"On Friday, the RI said her position was no longer affordable. Lady Greenfield responded by saying she would take her former employers to an employment tribunal and her claim would include sexual discrimination."

You don't have to be a scientist to work out that the RI cannot afford to pay her salary because she has squandered all its money. By suing for compensation she intends to plunge it even further into debt! Is it just me, or is that adding insult to injury? Greenfield seems to have something of an ego, and an over-inflated sense of personal entitlement.

"She became a bit too convinced of her own infallibility and relied on her own counsel. I think most people around her had become quite distant - she did not think they had the power to depose her.”

At the weekend, Professor Lisa Jardine, chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, said “Removing Susan Greenfield is tantamount to closing the institution."

What nonsense. No-one individual is that important. Plunging it into financial ruin is what will cause the closure of the RI. I get the impression Jardine is more interested in an ideological agenda about the profile of women in science, than she is about the RI.

The handkerchiefs may be coming out for Greenfield, but no-one seems to be concerned about the possible demise of the British Royal Institution, a considerable national asset, as well as a global scientific asset, incalculably more important than Greenfield's (or any other) career. Nor does anyone seem willing to condemn Greenfield for her gross financial mismanagement. I think that that is where the sexism is really to be found in this case.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary

I came across this excellent article by Steven Baskerville. Excerpt:

"Feminist ideology has radicalized criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections: New crimes have been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial. “The new feminist jurisprudence hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system,” Michael Weiss and Cathy Young write in a Cato Institute paper. “Chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”

Feminists and other sexual radicals have even managed to influence the law to target conservative groups themselves. Racketeering statutes are marshaled to punish non-violent abortion demonstrators, and “hate crimes” laws attempt to silence critics of the homosexual agenda. Both are supported by “civil liberties” groups. And these are only the most notorious; there are others.

Feminists have been the most authoritarian pressure group throughout much of American history. “It is striking what an uncritical stance earlier women reformers took toward the state,” Gottschalk observes. “They have played central roles in … uncritically pushing for more enhanced policing powers.”

The first politicized crime was rape. Suffragettes advocated castrating rapists. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who opposed it for everyone else, wanted rapists executed.

Aggressive feminist lobbying in the legislatures and courts since the 1970s redefined rape to make it indistinguishable from consensual sex. Over time, a woman no longer had to prove that she was forced to have non-consensual sex, but a man had to prove that sex was consensual (or prove that no sex had, in fact, happened). Non-consent was gradually eliminated as a definition, and consent became simply a mitigating factor for the defense.

Men accused of rape today enjoy few safeguards. “People can be charged with virtually no evidence,” says Boston former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman. “If a female comes in and says she was sexually assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else — and I mean nothing else, no investigation — the police will go out and arrest someone.”

Almost daily we see men released after decades in prison because DNA testing proves they were wrongly convicted. Yet the rape industry is so powerful that proof of innocence is no protection. “A defendant who can absolutely prove his innocence … can nonetheless still be convicted, based solely on the word of the accuser,” write Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson in Until Proven Innocent. In North Carolina, simply “naming the person accused” along with the time and place “will support a verdict of guilty.” Crime laboratories are notorious for falsifying results to obtain convictions.

The feminist dogma that “women never lie” goes largely unchallenged. “Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes,” says Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for zealous prosecutions. Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin found that “41% of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false” during a nine-year period, “that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred.” Kanin discovered three functions of false accusations: “providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention.” The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) adds that “false rape accusations also have been filed to extort money from celebrities, to gain sole custody of children in divorce cases, and even to escape military deployments to war zones.”

The world of rape accusations displays features similar to other feminist gender crimes: media invective against the accused, government-paid “victim advocates” to secure convictions, intimidation of anyone who defends the accused. “Nobody dependent on the mainstream media for information about rape would have any idea how frequent false claims are,” write Taylor and Johnson. “Most journalists simply ignore evidence contradicting the feminist line.” What they observe of rape characterizes feminist justice generally: “calling a rape complainant ‘the victim’ — with no ‘alleged’.” “Unnamed complainants are labeled ‘victims’ even before legal proceedings determine that a crime has been committed,” according to CMR.

Conservative critics of the Duke fiasco avoided feminism’s role but instead emphasized race — a minor feature of the case but a safer one to criticize. Little evidence indicates that white people are being systematically incarcerated on fabricated accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men, both white and black, accused of rape and other “gender” crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.

The Kobe Bryant case demonstrates that a black man accused by a white woman is also vulnerable. Historically, this was the more common pattern. Our race-conscious society is conditioned to remember lynching as a racial atrocity, forgetting that the lynched were usually black men accused by white women. Feminist scholars spin this as “the dominant white male ideology behind lynching ... that white womanhood was in need of protection against black men,” suggesting fantastically that white “patriarchy” used rape accusations to break up a progressive political romance developing between black men and white women. With false rape accusations, the races have changed, but the sexes have remained constant.

We will continue to fight a losing battle against crime, incarceration, and expansive government power until we confront the sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the ensuing social anomie, but the criminalization of the male population. Ever-more-repressive penal measures will only further erode freedom. Under a leftist regime, conservatives must rethink their approach to crime and punishment and their unwitting collusion with America’s homegrown Stalinists.