Sunday, July 12, 2009

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts!

Who do the radical feminists love to hate?

Wrong!! Why would you say it's me? Guess again.

That's right, Christina Hoff Sommers! She wrote The War Against Boys back in 2000.

Sommers, you see, doesn't buy into the crazy numbers the feminists love to throw around. Read more here.

"The history of women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. ... The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as 'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe."

Where to begin? How about with the fact that Romulus of Rome never existed. He is a figure in Roman mythology — the son of Mars, nursed by a wolf. Problem 2: The phrase "rule of thumb" did not originate with any law about wife beating, nor has anyone ever been able to locate any such law. It is now widely regarded as a myth, even among feminist professors.

Sounds like a job for Jamie and Adam, right after they bust the "two heads are better than one" myth.

Zorza also informs readers that "between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of domestic violence." Studies by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, indicate that the figure is closer to 1 percent.

Hey, what's 34% error between friends?

"Thug," "parasite," "dangerous," a "female impersonator" — those are some of the labels applied to me when I exposed specious feminist statistics in my 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? (Come to think of it, none of my critics contacted me directly with their concerns before launching their public attacks.) According to Susan Friedman, of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, "Sommers' diachronic discourse is easily unveiled as synchronic discourse in drag. ... She practices ... metonymic historiography." That one hurt! But my views, as well as my metonymic historiography, are always open to correction. So I'll continue to follow the work of the academic feminists — to criticize it when it is wrong, and to learn from it when it is right.

Maybe she'll take a look at the nutty numbers the WSF routinely toss out as "facts".

Look for The Science on Women and Science (edited by Sommers) soon.

1 comment:

Deer Slayer said...

I'm sorry as I read about her blatant disregard of the facts. Her throwing around big numbers to a hyperbole level, that are incorrectly taken literally by the uninformed masses, is incompetency at an alarming level. I can not help but see the parallels to the "covenient lies" bigo fat al gore has spread around the world. Why let truth get in the way of a good lie. Fearmongering leads authors to "not let a good crisis go to waste". What ever happened to telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.