So the difference between male and female students may reflect different power positions, with those most at risk of proscription more favorably disposed toward free speech. It may also reflect differences between male and female temperaments on average. Psychological studies over many years conclude that women tend to prize agreeableness and consensus, while men tend to seek out conflict and competition. One can easily imagine evolutionary explanations for this group difference, which of course would not be apparent in every individual.
Female students’ willingness to subordinate free speech to political values is disturbing, in a time when habits of mind and behavior developed on campus tend to leach out to the larger society.
Results for the college student sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 3,072 U.S. college students, aged 18 to 24, who are currently enrolled as full-time students at four-year colleges. Gallup selected a random sample of 240 U.S. four-year colleges, drawn from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), that were stratified by college enrollment size, public or private affiliation, and region of the country.
Study shows….. was the favourite expression of a long dead friend of mine. Say it with appropriate tones of cynicism.
Check the questions that were asked of the people in the study. This is a study a conservative might like to believe but, like anthropogenic global warming, deserves a wary eye.
Badly behaved children are more likely to grow up to be left-wing, a study has shown.
A study of 16,000 British people in their 30s found those with troubled childhoods were more likely to favour radical socialist policies.
The study was a follow-up to research conducted when they were children at the ages of five and seven.
Those whose parents reported they had ‘conduct problems’ at in primary school were more likely to favour radical socialist polices and to smash the status quo.
….The parents of the children in the study completed an assessment of their chilld’s behaviour at the ages of either five or seven.
They were asked to say whether their children had problems relating to anxiety, conduct or hyperactivity.
When adults – at the ages of 30 or 33 – the participants filled in questionaires that assessed a variety of traits.
These included economic conservatism, political cynicism, racism, authoritarianism, and attitudes about gender inequality.
The participants were asked how much they agreed with statements such as: ‘Government should redistribute income”, ‘People like me have no say in what Government does”, “Would not want a person from another race to be boss”, “law breakers should be given stiffer sentences” and “Men and women should have [the] chance to do [the] same kind of work.’ The researchers combined the scores into two broad factors: economic and political discontent and social conservatism.
(My own answers to those questions would be:
It already does enough of that, thank you.
no, and neither do you.
It would depened on whether they were affirmative action candidates. I have seen enough over-promoted women French Canadian civil service managers to be skeptical of all forms of affirmative action in management, which always comes down to the idea that there are too many white males in positions of authority. Out goes Reginald Skippon from Yorkshire and in comes Claudette Blanchard from Rimouski to manage ship’s engine repair in the Coast Guard. You know the drill.
Penalties are hard enough already. Someone should read the penal code if they disagree.
Yes, they should. But see answer 3 above.)
Dr Lewis found that childhood conduct problems led to economic and political discontent in adulthood – and this was true across social classes and regardless of the individual’s intelligence.
He added that conduct problems in childhood may reflect difficulty with self-control and long-term planning or early rejection of authority – either of which could lead to economic or political discontent.
Dr Lewis said: ‘We all wonder from time to time why it is that those on the other side of the fence came to be that way,’ Lewis notes. ‘These findings take us a little further down the road to answering that question.’
The trans movement is asking Americans to accept and indeed to make their lives and their perceptions of reality conform to a set of extraordinary ideas based on very little debate. These claims are often put forth in the language of psychiatry and psychology, and they implicate the lives of real people, many of whom suffer genuine, sometimes unbearable anguish. Which good American can say no to the cries of a suffering minority, especially when they are amplified by scientific authority?
The science isn’t there yet, in point of fact. The case for accepting and advancing the cause of transgenderism is, at root, a radical philosophical argument—one that goes to the heart of what it means to be human. Accepting the trans movement’s argument requires us to lend credence to an extreme form of mind-matter dualism, and involves severing the links between bodily sex, gender identity, and erotic desire.
But first: What do the activists claim? If there is one unshakeable tenet, it is that gender identity and expression—a person’s self-concept as a gendered being and how that person outwardly manifests it—are different from the sex organs that have distinguished male from female since the emergence of the species. They argue that while a physician might “assign” a sex to a newborn, that label may well be at odds with the baby’s true gender. As the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) puts it in a guide for journalists, a transgender person is one “whose sex assigned at birth is different from who they know they are on the inside.”…
At the same time, the activists hold—and this is their second major tenet—that gender itself is largely a social construct, since it is society that labels various traits or characteristics “masculine” or “feminine.”…
The third tenet is that gender identity and sexual desire have nothing to do with each other. According to a model school-district transgender policy drawn up by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, sexual orientation is “a person’s romantic and/or physical attraction to people of the same or opposite gender or other genders. Transgender and gender nonconforming people may have any sexual orientation.” PFLAG likewise bifurcates gender identity and sexual preference: “It is important to note that gender identity neither relates to, nor determines, sexual orientation…. People who are transgender can also identify as gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, or queer….
Now we have the necessary elements to put together the vision of the human person offered by the trans movement. Each person has a strong innate sense of gender that, according to the activists, may or may not align with his or her physical sex. When the two don’t align, we are dealing, in essence, with brains or minds that are trapped in bodies with the wrong sex organs.2 It is incumbent on the rest of us, then, to recognize the “true” self that is so trapped and help it break free from the prison of the body.
This is a profoundly metaphysical, even spiritual, vision.
As we come from a country where seasons forcibly affect our beings, where we suffer from winter, rejoice in spring, relax in summer and get to work in the fall, why do we not have appropriate holidays to mark the seasons?
Yes I acknowledge that Christmas (25th December) is laid over the winter solstice (December 21st) in the northern hemisphere, by religious and social fiat. That is one out of four.
Easter varies by 28 days (a lunar month) + 7 days. It is celebrated on first Sunday after the first new moon after the spring equinox. As a movable feast, it is useless as an equinoctial celebration. As the observance of the death and resurrection of Jesus, Easter is too explicitly Christian. It has never taken off the way Christmas has, largely because the pagan origins of Yule coincide with the solstice, whereas Easter was made a movable feast by a decision of the Church in the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. The summer solstice is overlaid with St Jean Baptiste Day in Quebec and a week later English Canadians get July 1st, but neither is explicitly about the summer solstice.
We are too busy working on September 21st to pay much attention to the autumnal equinox, but we ought to mark the passing of the year more formally.
My plea is for a set of holidays that acknowledge we are on a planet that revolves around a sun, and which tilts and wobbles. We do not mark sufficiently our place in the universe. Having holidays like this would allow parents and educators to instruct the ignorant. If you think I exaggerate, I can relate my experience of a nice 50-year old taxi driver I had in Washington, D.C. last year, for whom the relationship among the solstices, the tilt of the earth, and the relationship of the seasons to these facts, was a revelation. I am not kidding, and he was not kidding me.
So yes, folks, for this and many other reasons, I favour statutory holidays on the summer solstice, and the spring and autumn equinoxes. Christmas is well covered, thank you.
In Arabic, “din” means ‘law’. In Hebrew “din” means ‘religion’.
Slow Islamization of the West is accomplished through two simple rules: 1. Once you get in you cannot get out. 2. If any of the parents are Muslim, all the children are Muslim.
A very slow conversion rate results in a society that, after a 1000 years, goes from 95% Christian to 95% Muslim.
Only the Wahhabist faction of Islam is truly dangerous, says Taleb. Wahhabism drives the tolerant majority of Muslims to intolerance. Shia and other forms of Islam are not a problem.
The same dynamic of intolerant minorities works on campuses. The social justice warriors drive universities because they are an intolerant minority.
Having heard this, I understand better why, in the Scottish Reformation, a Scottish earl chained a bunch of extreme Calvinists to a rock and drowned them at high tide. He understood the power of intolerant minorities.
Taleb: “Anything that does not involve costly signalling is not a religion. Gods demand sacrifices. No sacrifices: no religion.”
One of the costly methods of signalling your Christianity – or freedom from Islam – is not eat the sacrificial meat of Islam, halal. Costly signalling is the basis of real religion, says Taleb.
The latest from the Cuckoo’s Nest of Academia comes from the formerly renowned Oxford University in the UK. From the UK Daily Mail:
Oxford University will ‘feminise’ its philosophy curriculum in order to appeal to more female students and boost writers [sic] profiles. The university’s Faculty of Philosophy requested that 40 per cent of the recommended authors on its reading lists are women. Academic staff have also been asked to use writers’ first names when compiling reading lists instead of their initials, in order to highlight those that were written by women.
Ideas are of course not important, only the sex of the writer. Perhaps due attention should be paid to whether the philosopher is left-handed or right-handed? Blond or brunette? Cat-lover or dog-lover? Surely those criteria are equally relevant?
I demand that the philosophy curriculum be “feline-ized” because only cat-lovers can philosophize feline-istically.
It’s hard to parody universities these days, they are populated by people who would make morons look smart. Orwell nailed it when he said that some ideas are so stupid, only intellectuals will believe them. But, true to form, Monty Python’s crowd figured this out years ago…
Philosophers’ names have an “S” in them, is that right, honey? (here)
It doesn’t matter if the philosophy curriculum at Europe’s oldest university is reduced to parroting the piffle of cultural Marxism, what really matters is their feelings.
From my studies of communist societies, I formed the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is, in some small way, to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
This seems to summarize the actions of our universities today—Indoctrination centers for the weak-minded drones of tomorrow.
It must be Nurse Ratched’s day off at the Cuckoo’s Nest; poor little Cathy McCrackpot didn’t get her meds. Canada’s “Environment“ Minister, Catherine McKenna, called on her drones to consider “the gendered impacts of climate change on women, girls and children.” (here) All kinds of “women negotiators” are being trained up to deal with the problem of manmade (person-made?) climate change.
That’ll help. Of course, person-made climate change affects us all equally, but that doesn’t stop unscrupulous politicians inventing fantasies to feather their particular little nests.
The one thing about the world around us, aka objective reality, is that it is the same for everyone regardless of who they are. The laws of physics are the same for everyone because the basic precept of the scientific worldview is that there is an objective reality. Sir Isaac Newton discovered the fundamental Law of Gravitation. That law would be the same if he had been a woman, something that appears to be possible in the Liberal alternative universe.
McCrackpot’s hint that “women negotiators” would somehow be better than men implies an essential difference between women and men that is innate, that is, rooted in the woman-ness. Of course, women are different from men, but liberals, not noted for their consistency, will claim that men can change into women if they feel like it. So what difference would “women negotiators” have that men wouldn’t have?
None. It’s all about jobs for the chicks. Cushy government jobs with loadsamoney and no responsibilities. As one wit noted, the minister’s own job is fruit of “gender-appointed roles to made-up superfluous positions.”
After all, who is going to be held to account if the “climate” doesn’t do what they want?
As the saying goes: “World Ends Tomorrow. Women and Children Affected Most.”
Everyone seems to think I am a member of the Ontario PC party, everyone, it seems, but party headquarters. I did not get my validation number in the mail, and nor did a friend of mine, who is a heavy-duty insider. Was it the Post Office? Or was I considered deviant? Or have I forgotten to renew my membership? Who knows?
I was sitting at a dining table with a lot of old-stock Ontarians last week. At least half the table were Conservatives, all had voted. Most were for Christine Elliott. I sent her a $100. I have nothing against Caroline Mulroney; I welcome her entry. I would have Doug Ford over for a beer any day, and we would have firm mateship and agreement. What I want, however, is a prime minister of a province who knows the bureaucracy, who can get legislation through parliament, manage the cabinet, fire the wicked, re-organize as required, mobilize the electorate, and not be too impressed with herself (a pronoun to use in this conjuncture). I do not want someone who has not been in cabinet yet. I want someone who knows how to run a meeting, control the agenda, and talk to the civil servants in such a way that they willingly execute the policies of the new regime. Accordingly, Christine Elliot looked to me like the only one who qualified.
May this evil spawn of Satan, these slow-motion Maduros of the Ontario Liberal Party, suffer in opposition for decades.