This is followed by quotes from various individuals. This is a repetition of a previous technique of quoting extreme views and then suggesting, without foundation, that those views are held by 50% of the population and using that to argue for the disenfranchisement of that 50%. My previous criticism of that method still stands.Dachshund wrote:Before I document the diverse kinds of violent, antisocial fall-out that the feminist offensive against marriage and the traditional family has spread through Western societies ( and I will use the USA as an exemplar) let me give you some examples of the type of rhetoric utilized by key leaders of the feminist movement in the US in their attack against the traditional institution of marriage over the past decades to date...
Marxism is mentioned very frequently. The suggestion is that if some people who call themselves feminists also appear to hold some of the views that are sometimes described as Marxist it follows that all feminists and all women are Marxists. It has also previously been suggested that if all political views can be represented on a left-to-right spectrum then anything to the left of the right-wing of the US Republican party is Marxism. Clearly this is an absurd falsehood and is another example of extrapolation from the extreme to the general.Dachshund wrote:These are, in my opinion, the self-evidently extreme, fanatical, hate-fuelled outbursts of a cadre of very bitter and twisted individuals, and they serve well to expose the intrinsically violent, antisocial and destructive nature of feminist cultural Marxism.
I will take just the first bullet point for now:Dachshund wrote:Note: for each of the bullet points I will set out below, any claims that I make can be supported by hard, empirical evidence in the form of either citations from the relevant, reputable mainstream academic literature or in the form of references to published government statistical analyses, etc.if requested.
...and ask for the hard empirical evidence that has been offered. If the hard empirical evidence can't be provided then the "Note:" and the bullet point are falsehoods.Dachshund wrote:* The vast majority of mothers in the US today, now believe that absent or uninvolved fathers can be easily replaced by another,...
Obviously "hard empirical evidence" means no opinion and no ambiguity - descriptions of reproducible experiments. The hard empirical evidence will first need to quantify what is meant by the term "vast majority" (e.g. 95%). It will then need to consist of properly conducted independent opinion polls which ask US mothers to state whether they agree or disagree with this statement:
"An absent or uninvolved father can easily be replaced by another man who is not the father of my children."
or something very similar. For the bullet point to be true, the number of mothers for which the term "the vast majority" stands (e.g. 95%) must agree with the statement.
I wouldn't have described myself as a feminist before. By expressing your views, you have made a reasonably good attempt at persuading me that there is a need to be one, but I'm still not convinced that your views are shared by more than a handful of people in the society in which I live. As you know, it took me a while to be convinced that they're sincerely held even by you. So I guess I'm still not entirely convinced of the need, in 2018, for feminism. If you can convince me that your views are widely and sincerely held I might change my mind and conclude that there is after all a genuine battle to be fought against those, such as you, who propose to impose dictatorship, remove individual liberty and violate some of the core principles of our justice system. But I doubt whether you will be able to do that.Dachshund wrote:would-be or wannabe feminists like Steve3007 ( Shame Steve, shame !!)
The evidence suggests that this is false.Dachshund wrote:My only affiliation is to the TRUTH.
---
On the subject of the correlation between scores in IQ tests and geographical location.
Dachshund wrote:..This is why Black sub-saharan and Australian aboriginal patriarchies, for instance, have never managed to cultivate the kind of sophisticated and refined culture that we see manifested, in particular, in the splendid and majestic artistic and intellectual achievements of Western civilization over the past 400 years...
What is being proposed by Dachshund here and elsewhere appears to be, essentially, this:Dachshund wrote:...Likewise again, as for the patriarchy as it exists and prevails in the context of those Arabic races who practice the religion of Islam in the middle eastern States like Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Syria, etc, the same applies; namely, we are taking, first and foremost, about an ignorant, unenlightened regressive, rude, primitive, and barbaric racial culture ( which according to modern scientists conducting research in the fields of cognitive evolution and etology, for example, is largely a consequence, again, of relatively low average IQ) which although it happens to be patriarchal, bears no legitimate ,qualitative resemblance at all to the white Europid Western patriarchal cultures/civilizations of modernity.
1. Scores in IQ tests seem to be roughly correlated with geographical locations and ethnic origins ("race") of those being tested.
2. The level of material wealth and cultural sophistication reached by groups appears to be roughly correlated with scores attained in recently performed IQ tests.
3. Therefore material wealth and cultural sophistication is caused by higher IQ scores, and higher IQ scores are a result of something in the genetic makeup of the populations studied.
Aside from the problem (already briefly discussed) of objectively genetically identifying people as being members of a particular race (this being the reason for the classification of "race" as a social construct in contrast with a more objectively quantifiable biological concept like "species" or "gender"), and aside from the fact this is not the only correlation and is not a very precise correlation, the main problem with the above argument is that the causal relationship could be the other way around. If (1) and (2) are correct, this could be because IQ tests, to a large extent, despite their intended purpose, measure educational attainment and therefore the higher IQ scores are not the cause of, but are caused by factors (such as wealth) which result in better education.
How to test this?
It's difficult to test which way the causal relationship works, or whether it's not that simple and is a complex mixture of causes and effects. But this study and other studies that are cited within it, for example, appear to suggest that differences in IQ score are indeed correlated with educational opportunities:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4445388/
This survey of IQ by country (Lynn and Vanhanen):
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
...has been widely criticized for its methods. But if, for the sake of argument, we take it at face value, it shows lower IQ scores in many sub-Saharan African countries and, to a lesser extent, the middle east and the sub-continent. But it also shows very high average IQ scores in such places as China and Japan, while some neighbouring countries containing populations of very similar genetic origins but with very different education systems, show much lower average IQs. Some countries with a very high proportion of their populations originating from (or still living in) Europe, such as Argentina and Greece, also show relatively low scores.
A widely known phenomenon called the Flynn effect (general increase in IQ due to environmental factors, e.g. education and nutrition) seems to be at work in China. See here for a study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9613000901
If the genes-cause-IQ-results theory, combined with the Europeans-are-superior theory, were correct one would not expect any this to be the case. For example, if Dachshund's theory about the origins of western culture were correct, one would expect modern-day Greece in particular, whose population can still largely be traced back to the inhabitants of approximately that region thousands of years ago, to be a towering figure in terms of IQ scores; well above China. If recently measured IQ was an indication of which civilization was objectively superior then it appears on the face of it that the most objectively superior civilization on Earth right now is China.
Another test of the genes-cause-IQ-results/Europeans-are-superior theory would be to examine the achievements of ethnic groups from outside Europe who's immediate ancestors have recently immigrated to European countries but who have had similar educational opportunities to their indigenous fellows, and have not been disadvantaged by factors such as family circumstances or second-language issues - i.e. where the only significant variable is the genes of the ethnic group to which they belong. One such group would be people from the sub-continent and other parts of Asia immigrating to the UK. Statistics like this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ex.pdf.pdf
...suggest that children in UK schools whose recent ancestors originated from countries such as India and Bangladesh appear to do better, on average, than their ethnically white fellows.
If Dachshund's assertions about the direction of causality were correct one would expect that, to coin a phrase "you can take the Indian out of India but you can't take India our of the Indian". In other words, one would expect that the educational opportunities in the UK would be to no avail. One would expect the alleged genetic factors to persist for many, many generations. This appears not to be the case for recent immigrants from the sub-continent and other parts of Asia. It also appears to be the case that students of Afro-Caribbean origin have caught up. Again, this contradicts the idea that this group is genetically, on average, less intelligent. If the cause of poor academic attainment was a genetic predisposition in an ethnic group, then one or two generations would certainly not be enough for that to change.
So, as I've said previously, if we want to find the closest possible similarity to Dachshund's views on women, as expressed on this website, elsewhere in the modern world, groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Wahhabi movement of Saudi Arabia (i.e. extremist interpretations of Islam combined with other local cultural traditions) appear to be the best fit. Dachshund's theory that this is not a fair comparison due to supposed genetic-origin differences in IQ between males of different ethnic origins does not appear to stand up to scrutiny. As I said, with reference to the "banality of evil" concept, humans all over the world appear to be capable of attempting to rationalize the oppression and disenfranchisement of particular sections of their populations just as much as each other and this has nothing to do with the average IQ of the ethnic group of which they are members.
Whether it's Nazi against Jew, Hutu against Tutsi or Dachshund against woman, ethnic-group IQ is not a significant factor in predicting whether people will hold what we would see as extremist views.
The professed views of western far-right groups like the National Front are similar to those of Dachshund (though not as extreme as his) on the subjects of immigration and ethnic diversity, but they don't generally appear to fit Dachshund's views about women or on subjects like abortion. Overall, the fit with extreme religious groups (Islamic and Christian) appears to be closer than the fit with extreme right-wing groups on those subjects. But obviously the internal contradictions in Dachshund's views (discussed previously) make it an in-exact fit.