The Nordic Council of Ministers (a regional inter-governmental co-operation consisting of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland) has decided to close down the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute. The NIKK had been the flagship of “Gender Theory”, providing the “scientific” basis for social and educational policies that, from the 1970s onward, had transformed the Nordic countries to become the most “gender sensitive” societies in the world.
The decision was made after the Norwegian State Television had broadcasted a television documentary called “Hjernevask” (the Norwegian word for “brainwash”) in which comedian Harald Eia exposed the hopelessly unscientific character of the NIKK.
Part 1 – ”The Gender Equality Paradox"
Part 2 – ”The Parental Effect”
Part 3 – ”Gay/straight”
Part 4 – ”Violence”
Part 5 – ”Sex”
Part 6 – ”Race” (password: hjernevask)
Part 7 – ”Nature or Nurture”
Tl;dr: Comedian completely destroys every claim by the gender studies institute with proof from actual scientists, biologists, psychologists etc. to the point where the state shuts it down.
This is possibly the greatest media presentation on gender issues I've ever seen. If you can only watch one of them, I think it should be the first part. When he shows the British professor the video of the sociologists completely dismissing the science out of hand, her reaction is priceless. She then gives an amazingly insightful comment about biology influencing our behaviors.
I'd like to nominate it as side-bar material.
I've already pinged the other mods about this.
Hope they agree. It would be great to get some new material there.
Done. It's there under "Gender Studies Is Nonsense".
Honestly I think this video is one of the biggest testaments to TRP. Not only does it prove the differences between men and women that we have been stressing, but it also shows "scientists" (male and female) hamstering despite strong evidence otherwise. I also was fascinated by the idea that true equality creates inequality. This video pumped me up, and made me proud to be a red piller. I would recommend it to anyone new to this. I'm really curious to see what labels the general reddit folk would fling around after seeing this powerful video.
So true. This statement applies not only to men and women, but to all social issues and economic issues. The more society tries to create "equality", the more it creates a system where one person or group of persons benefits at the expense of another person or group of persons.
I couldn't agree more.
Yeah...
You know I find it amusing in that first video that the woman representing gender studies was always on her heels when he was asking the tough questions. The man representing gender studies was fairly articulate even though he was still being proven wrong.
Of course the ones championing biology and/or social conditioning together were the most articulate and believable because they actually had evidence and experience to back it up.
I am not disagreeing with you... but it is a movie. You are shown what the director wants you to see.
The problem is that the brain is so complex that we've barely scratched the surface in figuring out how it works. The opponents of the biological influence want to see definitive understood differences in the brain before they will even consider the idea that biology is at play here. Unfortunately the best that can be done right now is testing of the brain from the outside. Put the brain in situations and see how it reacts. The opponents of biological influences just dismiss such studies completely, which I think is crazy. That just means that there is low certainty about things.
Here is one question I have. Can science currently tell the difference between the brains of people with one type of personality vs another personality? We know it has to exist since brains don't just act in a consistently unique manner because of randomness. If we don't have that capability then why are the opponents of biological influence requiring that brain differences be detected before they will put any weight on the other experiments. If they can find the difference in the brain then we can assume, based off of the fact that adult males and females exhibit different personalities, that they also have different brains. Why aren't the opponents of biological influence then trying to prove their hypothesis by examining how those differences develop, and what proof do they have that the differences aren't biologically driven?
It's been done
The only thing that I've ever heard of is connectivity and region size comparisons. Both sides continuously claim the other sides studies are bunk, and I'm not motivated enough in this topic to make this subject a big part of my life. Basically I'm staying out of it.
Either way, as I said before, size differences and large scale connectivity patterns only scratch the surface of how the brain works. There are many personality traits that are consistently exhibited by certain individuals and these behaviors somehow have basis in the brain. Until we're at the level where we can analyze the brain in a much more complex and involved manner trying to pinpoint many behaviors to the structure of the brain is a dream. Much of the brain right now can only be analyzed by looking at the behaviors produced. Trying to say that there definitely is no biological difference between groups because you can't figure out where the difference is in the brain is ridiculous. First of all, unless someone is going to claim that our behaviors originate from outside of our body, we know the differences are there. There shouldn't even be a question about if there are physical differences. They're there. The real question is if those physical differences that lead to our different behavior are things that we're born with or if they're things that we develop after we're born in response to external stimuli. The key part being, in response to external stimuli.
You've totally gotten involved. Everything you see in your daily life suggests that men and women act differently. Every piece of history you've ever read or heard of has shown gender roles exactly like the ones we have today.
If you don't come to any conclusions, it is the very definition of being unwilling to think about the issue. You could have just watched the documentaries instead of spending your time writing large comments and being the equivalent of an agnostic for the feminist religion.
I had already watched two of the documentaries when I made the comments. Unfortunately I have a life so I couldn't spend my whole day watching them all. Also, I didn't say I don't have opinions. I'm just not going to go way out of my way to become an expert in the research in the area. Therefore I'm going to stay out of the debate about what research is weak and what research has been refuted, which is what both sides seem to always claim about the other.
How in the world does this comment have 4 downvotes?
I'd hate to be the scientist that got shut down by a comedian. That shit will be on nobody's resumes.
Calling them scientists is giving them far too much credit.
Those gender studies fools are definitely not scientists.
The only thing these people are qualified to scientifically study, is how often customers want fries with that.
"You only THINK you want fries with it because CAPITALIST CULTURE has PROGRAMMED you to want more!"
"What do you MEAN 'fired'?!"
It's because I'm a woman isn't it? Stop harassing me!
In the field
Social Science is largely a misnomer. Don't get me wrong, there are serious and highly qualified researchers involved in those fields, but for the most part, it lacks the defining trait of a scientific question: falsifiability. In actual science, there is always something that if introduced or discredited would falsify the assertion. For example: a human fossil in the Jurassic Period would totally derail evolution, but that hasn't happened. For these fools posing as scientists, there is nothing that would disprove the principles behind their SJW agenda. It's not science. Full stop. Even worse, it's pseudoscience.
Modern day's equivalent of the "all-licensed fool" who could tell the king exactly where he got it wrong, when nobody else could.
This is honestly a must-watch if you care about philosophy at all. You'll see how intellectually bankrupt and cult-like gender studies professors are. A comedian just asking them questions and for evidence supporting their claims makes complete fools of them.
I love how the blank faced gender studies woman doesn't reply with any counter arguments and just goes "no I don't think so".
I watched this with my best friend, who later made the mistake of arguing/re-watching it with his extremely (annoying) feminist girlfriend. Her response was basically the same from the start.
"No, that's wrong." When pressed for what was wrong, she was unable to answer other than saying "This is made by people who HATE women." When asked, even if that's so, what's wrong with their logic, she finally went full on yelling and asked why he was attacking her.
It's telling that a critique of Scandinavian Gender Studies is a personal attack on her in her mind. Any comment about women is a comment directly about her. Solipsism is powerful.
How is it that all these otherwise seemingly sane people always end up with these radical SOs? Are they so desperate they'll take anything? For me it was fairly reasonable to just sort through and be patient until I found someone good who was not this insane.
If you really want a long response: he was raised mostly by a single mother who was so insane and controlling she really did a number on him. His dad, who was around at least but did not have full custody, was a total betamax despite looking more than a little like Sting.
I'll give you a super brief example of his mother's behavior: once he washed his hands in a theater bathroom and was freaking out because he was headed home right after that. The soap was very floral scented, and he worried that she would think he was doing drugs when she smelled his hands. I stopped him, "smells your hands? Why would she be able to smell your hands?!" He told me that she does that to see if he's been doing "things he shouldn't." Which probably meant more than he realized at the time, and grosses me out now.
So he's always had a preference for girls who direct the relationship. This one is probably the worst in the feminism department. She works for an non-profit and is very wealthy. She comes from a household with an extremely beta father. And she has no grip on what reality looks like. If they didn't spoon feed it to her in college, she isn't interested.
(Aside: she and I have had the women vs men earning rate argument, only because I wanted to rile her. She couldn't accept those numbers either, and we pulled them directly from the BLS.)
So that's your answer. He is with a girl who is roughly as controlling as his mother, just in different ways. He's seen my success with women over the last few years, and listens to me to some extent, so he isn't totally averse to the red pill ideals. But he constantly says "I don't want to do it that way." So he gets what he gets. I'm hoping this one is crazy enough to make him reconsider.
[permanently deleted]
Whoah... and I thought -I- had crazy parents.
he's more of a spineless cunt submissive faggot than you imagine
he's trying to keep a decently respectably "manly" image in your presence, but it's an act.
he loves taking it up the ass by females and other "minorities".
sorry.
Yeah I dated extensively usually multiple women at a time until I figured out what it was I wanted. Most just date until they find something shiny and then keep it because it's shiny.
You have to be first aware that there is something you are looking for. Most people are not that self aware, they want looks and basic chemistry. That shit fades, you need actual compatibility. I looked specifically for a woman that had what I then called 30's housewife ideals. Found her and while some minor issues we are a great husband and wife as well as father and mother. Not a married couple with kids, that is modern era bullshit. Husband and Wife as well as Father and Mother.
To many kids fed bullshit at an early age never even realize there is a difference.
this
It's what happens to a mind high on blue pill.
This is your brain on blue pill.
You're either for doing more for women or you're against women... that's the thinking. While I don't necessarily know that we shouldn't be doing more for women in some areas, I absolutely hate when I run across a feminist who gets upset if you simply bring up any talk that doesn't help or support the goal of advantaging women more.
That's the point. They legitimately see things as a one dimensional line of where females are relative to males. You're either closing the gap... or you're not. And if you're not, you're part of the problem. Even trying to dismantle ways females have it better for the sake of equality in all areas is anathema to them since they see that as widening the gap.
[permanently deleted]
SithRedditSays
So, hamsters gonna hamster?
Feminists. The perpetual victims
hamster rage mode
Hamster's been lifting.
[permanently deleted]
women logic in a nutshell
who does this remind you of?
Who are you to devaule her feelings?!
She feels those things! It follows then that they must be true! Who gives a shit about your stupid "facts" and "evidence"?
Oh, I promise you, when you understand the language (Norwegian here), their frantic stuttering and inability to argue reasonably is absolutely astonishing. It's just as bad as it looks. The only argument they have is that they don't understand why anyone would want to investigate biological differences. Damn, what a waste of government money.
Edit: I just want to add, I don't know if it shines through in the translation, but the woman in the video is eff-ing scary. She looks like one of those feminists that could explode into a screaming inferno at a bar or something.
She looked like a psychopath when she claimed the professor measured to confirm his believes. Definitely not a good idea to ask further questions at this moment.
It's the same kind of loaded question as "if you have nothing to hide why are you against invasion of privacy". Either you agree or you're a
terristshitlord.Reminds me of that Liar Liar scene in the courtroom.
"YOUR HONOR I OBJECT!"
"On what grounds?"
"It is devastating to my case!"
"Overruled."
"Good call!"
Yeah it's almost like science...
Except that you jump straight from question to the answer and skip all the stuff regarding testing, observing and what not... Almost like posting on reddit. Hmm maybe that explains SRS?
That's the sign of real privilege. She's never had someone with the balls and intellect to challenge her before because sexism and patriarchy.
Actually ... no. Challenging makes a difference only for people who listen, have basic reasoning skills and somewhat open minds. What she needed early on was somebody to clearly and forcefully tell her that she's stupid and should just shut up. If a powerful male told her early on, she wouldn't have wandered into la-la land on her own.
Effectively, she is saying that her theory of gender equality does not permit any other answer, and therefore gender equality is true. This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question". I wonder what kind of pretend college gave her a degree.
The guy who refuses to accept any of the other studies has a more sophisticated answer; he wants to see the "exact way" in which biology affects gender choices, and in the meantime his gender equality ideas must be true. I'd say he is like someone who refuses to believe that physics is worth studying because it is only a bunch of theories. "F=ma has only been proven to 15 decimal places? Come back to me when you know EXACTLY." (Not that I'm putting forward a strawman here... Speaking of fallacious arguments...)
They are priestess and priest in the same cult, presenting their fiction as reality.
I read she had to leave the country after her professional 'act' was aired.
God damnit, that means she could be right here!
Yeah. She'd get a job in a women's studies department in the states easy.
That was the best bit! Then makes a personal attack that has nothing to do with the conversation (why are people so frenetic about finding differences, the beta guy does the same thing). She looked so dumb I was almost embarrassed for her, sitting there playing with her hands, blushing. Denying science, and saying what she believes was based on "her own theory" <- errr what the fuck did you just say.
They are not scientist, they are priests.
That's one way to solve the demarcation problem - by simple assertion.
I'm starting to see a pattern. Every time he needs a real scientist he travels out of Scandinavia.
The adoptive study in the second video is amazing.
[permanently deleted]
As someone who became an atheist in rural USA, I was surprised to see the gender theorists resort to the same basic arguments as religious fundamentalists. The comedian shows one of the gender theorists stone cold evidence, such as gender differences in one day old babies or gender differences across time. The gender theorists response was that no amount of "weak" evidence could ever "prove" biological hypothesis, so he would remain a good scientist by adopting an anti-biological perspective.
This sounds remarkably similar to denying the validity of evolution because not all past animals are accounted for in the fossil record. Also, just as religious fundamentalists will translate "you can't prove god doesn't exist" to "I'm going to continue to say god exists", the gender theorists translate, "You can't prove that babies don't receive some gender information from society" to "I'm going to say society dictates the gender of babies".
Fundamentalists of both groups respond to any rational skepticism by immediately attacking the motives of anyone questioning their religions. In this case, we see the immediate response of gender theorists to actual medical research is to ask, "Isn't it strange how frenetic these people are to show a biological impact?"
It's unfortunate the many people in the United States will rebel against their closed minded religious parents by going to university and immediately joining the "post-modernist" religion. These people never get a chance to see the world without constant brainwashing.
It meshes well with their jante's law culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law
Here's a bit from linked Wikipedia article about Jante Law :
about | /u/kratol can reply with 'delete'. Will also delete if comment's score is -1 or less. | Summon: wikibot, what is something? | flag for glitch
It's pretty clear that you have your own fundamentalism to deal with, just not religious (although that seems to be coming your way too.)
Actually feminism/liberalism meets the definition of a nontheistic religion.
Where have you been? In these people's minds those are the only two options. Less of one means more of the other.
It's almost like your DNA has a lot to do with your intelligence!
In America you are a stupid bigot if you think that intelligence is heritable because that would mean maybe there are bad students, people not smart enough for college and people so dumb they make horrible choices that make them poor.
Since I'm not a stupid bigot I'll just blame all failure on racism, sexism and rich people.
What's tragic is that these people that are not a good match for college would probably do well in the blue collar trades that will always be needed. Plumbing, construction, welding, etc.
But no! Get into college with massive loans and major in art literature and graduate with a 2.0! Employers will be falling over each other to hire you!
Oh I agree. What's worse is when people act like we can automate every job and that will be ok because everyone can just go to college and become a mathematician or chemist.
In the future the left half of the bell curve is going to get poorer and poorer because of automation. There are serious problems ahead.
I'm not looking forward to the "to be or not to be" stage of that. Eugenics is just a messy topic.
Plenty of people with high IQs will make dumb decisions that make them poor as well. The human mind is not very well adapted to managing money and finances. Nearly everyone can fall victim to the "zero down, no payments for blah blah blah" bullshit and end up with huge amounts of debt and little to show for it.
It's hard to get in the mind of a low IQ person. They have very short time horizons so it's hard for them to figure out what will happen to them when they do a certain action.
For example they might see something out of a store that they want so they just grab it not thinking that they could be caught.
When I say low IQ people making bad decisions I'm not just talking about high interest loans.
You're right in that sense, people who are really really dumb make really really bad decisions that screw up their lives. My problem is that I have such a high IQ that average people seem dumb to me, maybe that's my problem.
But it seems to me there's a common misconception in society equating intelligence to wealth and unintelligence to poverty. I've met many people with far lower IQs than me who have far larger bank accounts (that they earned themselves) than I do. I've also met people far smarter than me who are also much poorer than me.
IDK, I think we're both right.
Have you had an IQ test done?
IQ does correlate with wealth but it's just an average.
But it makes a lot of sense when you say it out loud. On average smart people make more money than dumb people.
When people say genetics matter, they are literately Hitler.
So they didn't do anything wrong?
holy shit i was thinking the same too
I think that's a hasty generalization there are many good scientists in Scandinavia...
There aren't that many options and nations that are highly homogeneous like the countries in Northern Europe. Had the studies been done in a highly diverse place like the United States, the results would be different. Not to mention, if a little boy and little girl from different parents were raised by the same adopting parents, the outcomes of these two children would be markedly different.
This is a pretty good documentary.
Watch for the hot blonde on the street discussing her prefrences for badboys ONS and more beta for relationships.
A minor correction however is that all these people are still professors at major universities and there is still "gender equality" research all over the place.
True, but it's not as if when she is looking for a BF she is looking for an ugly guy. I think most women would agree their ideal man is AlphaBux. A man who is very sexually attractive, doesn't take shit from people and a good provider/protector.
Just more respect to countries & cultures who identify problems and then fucking fix them. This would never happen in America.
EDIT: Just came back to say watch the part by Professor Campbell. She puts it so simply that it's basically self-evident:
Evolution --> DNA --> alternate hormone levels --> gender roles --> behaviors that reinforce the aforementioned evolutionary pressures --> continued DNA changes etc etc etc.
As a Dane, I would say that nothing really changes though. This institute may have been closed, but feminism keeps accelerating in Scandinavia. Sweden is miles ahead of any country in the world trying to become the most feminized country in the world.
Sweden is a lost cause. Let's close the bridge and be done with it.
They are pussifying their men so much that they will be outbred by Muslim immigrants within a few generations. Just watch.
So true, and when they try to enforce their culture on them they will just shout that it is religious persecution.
They are undoing thousands of years of culture of success for one that will be steamrolled quite easily.
If you notice anything about SJWers is that they give Muslims a free pass on their culture. Muslims will be running their government in 50 years while what Swedish men are left will be boning their hot Thai wives and the Swedish women will be importing cats.
Such a shame, if only their Viking ancestors could see them. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
You are talking about the people who actively sought out other cultures to transform themselves into?
Just think of it as evolution in action.
Exactly what I was thinking. This is like watching the Europeans land in North America in the 1500s. I'm sure there were Blue Pill Indians back then who were like : Hey, this ain't so bad. What's the worst that could happen ?
Holy fuck! You know that .gif of the fetish porn scene where it's somebody strapped in leather to a rascall scooter with the motor-dildo getting them from behind?
Yeah, you know the one.
I've never laughed harder than when someone posted that on 4chan with the filename: swedish_man_on_his_way_to_work.gif
I hope someone can find that bad boy, oh the lols.
Bahhaha! I recently started slumming it on 4chan (pol, v, b) and the pictures are comedy. I will try and get that gif
What's wrong with that? At least Muslims know what the differences men and women are instead of picking up the facade of pretending that there are none.
Just goes to show that Feminism infects and destroys cultures. Muslim cultures are very resistant to Feminist whining, which is why I believe that's all that'll be left of Sweden and any other socialized country that goes full feminist retard and attracts third world immigrants by the millions.
I am, while eating my popcorn. We all get the politicians we deserve.
I'm coming around to accept the theory that feminism and suffrage were society-wide shit-tests that western societies failed massively. I can't see a peaceful, political path to unscrew things.
Democracy will work nicely. Muslims swoop in for a better life, flick away feminist attempts to reforn them (protests etc), vote in masses for a Muslim friendly government, get their own sharia courts set up to avoid divorce-rape from fucking up family fortunes, and slowly turn a once thriving nation with a strong socialized government into the cold Saudi Arabia.
That could very well be how it'll play out. Yet I would have preferred to keep the whole rational, scientific world-view.
Incidentally, is the rate at which Scandinavian men are marrying foreign women really as high as I keep hearing? (Particularly Thai women).
No, and most things said about Scandinavia in this thread is extreme hyperbole. I mean, there are men importing Thai women but it's rare enough to be "my uncle's weird childhood friend". I've lived in Sweden for some years and sure, sometimes feminism here is just too much but once you put that newspaper editorial away most people are busy living their lives. There's a big difference between feminist bias in society, politics and media, and having female overlords whipping our men all the way to SE Asia. The former is a (very disturbing) reality, the latter is not. Swedish society may be one of the most gender obsessed in the world but the picture of feminazi hell painted here is just exaggerated.
Thanks.
--> Biotruths --> Rape Culture ---> Give us free stuff!
I would agree that there are obvious statistical differences between men and women as a whole, but I would also like to point out that technology has gone to great lengths to minimize the role of genetic differences when it comes to societal roles - especially those relegated to one sex or another. Example: To perform well in the Roman Legion, one must have the stamina and strength of a man to fight in hand to hand combat, even if it was done in short, violent bursts. Now, exceptionally strong women can fight, since most of the strength and stamina involves carrying gear rather than actually fighting. It takes relatively less strength to point and shoot than it does to hold back an enemy with a shield and stab with a spear.
And the Swedish media still refuses to show it, my university (Lund) still has a gender science department.
Don't count on it going away any time soon. Entire careers are built on this and any kind of attempt to reign them in will result in a massive hissy fit.
The best you can hope for is that they don't backfill vacant positions and slowly starve them of funding.
I feel bad for Sweden. It's when you fucking censor scientific studies, you know your country is controlled by idealists who will step over corpses to get what they want.
The same goes for Germany. Though it's probably less "refusing" and more "don't knowing it exists" (I have my doubts it would be shown on TV, though). Hell, only one liberal-conservative* newspaper even mentioned the flick.
Anyone remembering the "good old days" when there wasn't an internet around where you could watch stuff like that?
*European-style liberal; so it's not a contradiction in itself
Organize a public showing for students (do NOT let teachers come if you value your academic career), and leave time for a debate afterwards.
Report results.
PS : if teachers complain, just explain that due to the controversial subject, the students won't feel free to give their opinion if authority figures are present.
The part 5 about sex is particularly interesting when we come to the part about infidelity about 26-27 minutes in. At 29 minutes the one guy states that the woman is most worried about the infidelity because it jeoparidizes the man's diversion of his commitment and his resources to her.
Huh, so women are afraid of losing a man's commitment and resources. Who could have known?
Guy is a damn hero
Part 2 - The Parental Effect
This is absolutely fascinating. I had no idea that genetics play such a strong role in determining a child's preferences, intelligence, addictions, etc. For instance, there is no correlation between adopted children's IQ and that of their adoptive parents. The correlation is only between their genetic parents, even if they are not raised by them. So interesting.
Fantastic link! Thanks for sharing.
This is basic information but is systematically hidden from us and not allowed to be discussed most of the time.
I must say that i too was surprised that there is no correlation. I would have expected at least a small correlation as it's hard for me to believe that intelligence is only influenced by nature. But of course, nurture isn't just the parents. But one thing i asked myself and maybe someone here can answer this: Are there special requirements on adopting children that can cut the variation on adoptive parents iq down to a point where a significant correlation is really hard to find? I mean stuff like income/social status/etc. that unfolds in a very homogen parent group. Kind of holding this one variable constant to see how much the other (genetics) predicts?
Gender Studies: Because the philosophy department required you to, you know, defend your worldview.
Yeah that ladies bullshit answer at the end of the first video was a compete fail. Um.. It's from theoretical research... In what works is that a even mildly legitimate answer? That's even worse than saying it's it's from anecdotal evidence. It is straight up admitting bullshit and fraud.
Sounds like she could work for the insurance companies.
The male Gender Studies professor says there is no innate difference, and is spewing this around like a fact. Then, when he is defending himself, he said that "it is my hypothesis, there hasn't been any scientific basis".
You can't go around assuming hypotheses are correct, then try to prove it. That isn't science, it's the opposite of science.
Edit: I meant start with a conclusion, assume it's true, and then go out trying to prove it. Brain fart.
Yeah, that is religion.
A man being a feminist life he is is like a black guy being part of the KKK. The cognitive dissonance must be palpable.
It is called the Stockholm syndrome.
/rimshot
Wonder if he was thinking "Shit, I should have majored in Engineering"
That assumes he would have been capable of doing that.
He'd assume so then spend his life trying to prove that theory.
Actually that is how it's supposed to work:
If the hypothesis passes the test it becomes a scientific theory, if not, a new hypothesis is being postulated. Repeat.
but you don't assume correctness of the "educated guess", otherwise it wouldn't be acknowledged as a guess.
Well, I wasn't saying he's doing it correctly, he clearly sort of skipped the second point.
2 - Make your best effort to disprove your hypothesis. If you fail to disprove it that gives you the ammo to start defending it as true.
Crap I meant start with a conclusion, assume it's true, and then go out trying to prove it. Brain fart.
No worries :)
Do they even try to prove anything? Mostly they just assume it's true.
They dismiss anything that doesn't agree with them as a "weak study"
I believe he's trying to describe ad hoc hypothesis.
If you make a hypothesis then the burden of proof is on you. You must seek to prove it or or disprove it using study methods that elliminate bias.
Anyone who even has a basic knowledge of the scientific method (read; not gender studies majors) would be accutely aware of this.
[permanently deleted]
You forgot to add "Man Up"
Because only women get to define masculinity.
Or feminism, or rape, or racism, or misogyny, or who is actually a victim.
You know, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Two legs good, three legs bad.
Beautiful...
Here's the thing - I'm ok with being told to "Man Up" in the context of a social bargain with women where they "Woman Up" to their responsibilities. It's division of labor, synergistic problem solving, and it worked for thousands of years.
What I'm not ok with is being told to "Man Up" when the other side refuses to hold up their side of that implied agreement.
"Bitch are you gonna woman-up?"
[permanently deleted]
'Man up' isn't a useful term because it emasculates without providing constructive self-improvement techniques. TRP tells boys how to become men once they are willing to accept that their previous efforts were misguided. You're going to need to point me to a person on this sub whose sole piece of advice is "man up".
Feminists are the women that say they are fully capable of holding a door open for themselves, then get angry with a man for not holding a door open for them.
Holy shit this has happened to me. I opened a door for a woman one time and she was like,"uhh excuse me, I think I can handle opening a door". Super bitchy face. Stopped opening doors for women, even if they were right behind me.
One day I'm doing my thing and from behind me I hear. "Didn't your mother teach you manners? You are supposed to hold the door for a lady". Bitchy face.
Can't fucking win so fuck em.
You should have told the first woman: Didn't they teach you about manners?
I demand to see proof of their credentials as a 'lady'. I'll never get why we use that as a polite term for women when it'd be insane for a man to insist that he's a 'lord' without being able to prove it.
I was hoping it ended up being the same woman and you totally ripped her asshole open after she realized it
I'll keep opening doors for women. I'm not letting a feminist tell me what to do.
Good man. I still hold them if I am near but more than 5 feet away, nah.
I like to hold doors for people who are further than five feet... Just to see if I can get them to run.
Or when a man does open a door for them. However they feel that day is what matters.
No. The gender theory is a crazy idea that biological sex and cultural gender are completely independent and you can pick and choose. It has much more to do with blank slate than it has with feminism. They just happen to be popular among the same kind of people (broken).
Yes, I read a little about this "blank slate" theory, it's completely fucking insane. The idea that gender identity is a choice is beyond stupid.
Gender = Choice but Homosexuality = No choice (ie: born that way).
Perhaps they are both No choice
Feminists can be so dumb
I love how it is literally the opposite. I don't see why homosexuality being a choice is so offensive. Sexually is a spectrum not some black and white shit.
Some people are in the middle where they can literally choose which gender to fuck and be with. Some men are totally gay, hate woman, some men just want pussy. It's still always a choice how you identify and what emotional urges you chase after.
Emotions = identity for them.
Gender, you are literally born that way. It's insane.
The theory is not necessarily that gender is a choice, simply that it is not inherently intertwined with biological sex.
I think it is, and any instances to the contrary are not disproving of the rule.
I believe that if somebody believes that they're better off as a member of the opposite gender, and pumps themselves up full of hormones to achieve that, that they should be allowed to do whatever crazy shit they want. The key is that a majority of people aren't transgender, and you shouldn't take money away from real education to fund feminist bullshit like this. Feminists should be allowed to do whatever crazy shit they want in their own dark corner of society. I'm fine with a bunch of dumb SJWs deciding to start their own "Gender Studies" academy, funding it with private funds, and then getting people to go to it. Less competition for the rest of us who don't believe in that crap. Just keep all of the people who want to get a non-useful degree away from the rest of us, and society will be better as a whole.
Have you read Steven Pinkers book "the blank slate"?
But that's the point. When people say "feminism" they're not referring to classical feminism. They're referring to the postmodernists who think they own the term in modern day. (But simultaneously insist that it is all purpose.)
Actually that's not correct.
At least, in my little bubble of the universe (I've been involved with my schools Women & Gender Studies office for 2 years now, known trans(*)folk, I'm gay) that's not the commonly accepted belief.
Mark you that gender dysphoria exists. People don't go under the knife to get their dick tucked away or their boobs cut out because they thought it would be fun. It is because there is a mental disconnect between them and their bodies. Saying that gender is a choice is as ludicrous as saying that homosexuality is a choice.
What IS a choice is gender expression. Different things.
I was in a Ed snow thread and people starting bringing up "Chelsea manning"
I just was so confused until I found out they meant Bradley manning. facepalm
Funny watching feminists hamster this over in r/purplepilldebate.
It's obvious they're just as stubborn and delusional at the people in this video.
Excuse me if I am incorrect, but I believe that you intended to reference /r/purplepilldebate.
[permanently deleted]
Yeah, these videos have actually been mentioned here a few times. I think the OP meant that it was only recently that the government finally saw the video and realised how full of shit gender theory was.
I just did some further research and here's what happened in detail:
It was dismantled in December 2011 in Norway but is back in action in Sweden since October 2012. *sigh*
Maybe that's why they won't show the documentary in Sweden as /u/Heuristics pointed out.
Here's the linked section Dismantled from Wikipedia article Nordic Gender Institute :
about | /u/theVet can reply with 'delete'. Will also delete if comment's score is -1 or less. | Summon: wikibot, what is something?
Goddammit.
Cut off one head, two more will take its place!
"What about the results of the American studies?"
"American studies are weak"
This guy is a lecturer? He's a fucking bullshitter.
Do his studies even lift?
Side-bar material IMO.
My teacher here in Norway showed us this when I went to high school. He was a pretty cool guy.
Nothing to add but I'm excited my university was featured and the professor was speaking the truth. That was a pleasant surprise.
Go pay a visit
I plan on dropping in when I visit home
Informative and answers many questions. This kind of post is why I subscribe to this subreddit. Thanks.
This is true so often here, It truly amazes me that so many people see only the bitterness. I guess that's due to solipsism and hamstering though
Also confirmation bias...
It's not hard to do the mental handstand and assume we're all bitter misogynistic virgins. There can be a lot of anger floating around here. We also aren't politically correct.
Race video is password protected, why?
Not sure but it's "hjernevask".
Damn, that was my next guess
probably because of angry trolls.
This is brilliant. When the English lady describes, how from a evolutionary stand point, how asinine it is to believe evolution has done nothing to our brains over time; it's just well done.
Edit: And if you watch anything, fast forward to 33:37. On the first vid
These are without doubt the best videos on these subjects I have ever seen. I agree with Charles Murray, in the next 10-20 years the work in genetics is going to provide us with some very clear answers on a lot of questions. Its already fairly clear that genetics plays a large role in how we are, I worry though that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will convince people who have already decided that there can be no differences between human beings.
Anthropology especially idiots like Stephen Jay Gould with his propaganda poisoned that well. His lies, like with the skulls, are being exposed though.
Disgusting
My older brother did a thesis on gender studies. I always contended his views, but was constantly put down as being a stupid kid. The while thing is just so obvious, it's bizarre that there is so much funding in this area.
very very interesting.
Thanks for the links cos i've only seen part 1
I'm a Dane and this made my day.
I'm a Great Dane and I'm tired of these bitches.
these meddling* bitches
I'm kind of an ok Dane and I agree with you
I'm a Dane and I approve this message.
[permanently deleted]
I'm Dane Cook and I don't believe you
[permanently deleted]
You can deduce everything you need to know about Scandinavian gender sensitivity from their prostitution laws. In the rest of the world, it's either legal and thus okay for both parties or illegal and thus a crime for both parties. In Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland, prostitution is considered exploitation of the seller by the customer. It is 100% legal to offer but not to purchase sex. Their society has literally removed accountability from women.
Women can offer sex, can't be payed, and it removes responsibility from women?
I don't follow.
Prostitutes can offer it for money and accept payment with impunity, but the john is committing a crime.
That has to be an oversight... right? Like some fuckup forgot to dot an "i" somewhere. How could anyone write the law as "you can offer sex for money but if they say yeeessss...." and go "it's good, law's good, it'sdone".
No it's deliberate. Their whole rationale is that the prostitute can only ever be a victim.
"Rationale". Then why the fuck is it legal? Only ever a victim, yup that should be legal then.
At least in Denmark, this is not actually true.
It is legal to buy and sell sexual services as an individual, but illegal to provide the sexual services of others.
Ah. I looked at a map that grouped in Denmark with the other Nordic countries save Finland. It's definitely true in the other three though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden
But,,, that makes absolutely no sense! How can I legally sell stuff that would be illegal to buy?
That's pretty embarrassing really. I doubt it will be enough to remove the decades of feminist influence from the countries though.
Thanks. Great watch!
Only watched part 1 so far, but thanks for sharing. That was amazing to see how quickly the social "scientists" dismissed hard evidence they didn't agree with, without citing any of their own in disagreement. I also nominate this for sidebar material.
Wikipedia page for the documentary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
Playlist of all the videos (no passwords needed) on dailymotion:
http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x1xv47_BrainwashingInNorway_hjernevask-english-subtitles/1#video=xp0tg8
Here's a bit from linked Wikipedia article about Hjernevask :
about | /u/redeleven can reply with 'delete'. Will also delete if comment's score is -1 or less. | Summon: wikibot, what is something? | flag for glitch
Pay attention carefully and you will hear time and time again a certain sound emanating from the femtards whenever irrefutably challenged. It goes like this:
"...my problem is that I don't feel this is an important question..."
The sound of the frantically spinning hamster on femroids when it dangerously runs out of breath, and can spin no more.
[permanently deleted]
[permanently deleted]
Ja, en her. LOL
Har svelgt den røde, men ikkje fordøyd endå
Hvis den ikke går lett ned halsen er det ingen vits.
Ikkje med den holdningen der
flergen boorgen
Science is held back by wishful thinking. It would be nice if we were all equal, in some ways at least, but its simply not true. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of evolutionary biology will understand this. The cognitive dissonance is so striking in these videos its quite disturbing.
Good, I needed to watch the rest of these. I throw the stuff he finds in part 1 in people's faces all the time.
I remember watching this awhile ago. At the time I felt it wouldn't get any attention and its findings wouldn't gain any steam for being so contrary to modern convention. Happy to see this.
This series completely proved that the gender studies institute has no scientific basis and is practically pure ideology. Good.
At 33:40 "I think it's amazing how much energy someone can spend trying to find what they're looking for" is probably the most ironic thing I have ever heard
I wish Harald made a series on other 'progressive' dogmas that also fail to stand up to logic and data.
It totally gets my goat that liberals are big fans of genetics and evolution and happily use it against other religions, but it's not PC to discuss that it also contradicts many 'progressive' dogmas. (equality, etc)
I was a huge fan of Penn and Teller's Bullshit, which is a little more motivated thinking and certainly doesn't focus on any one political group. But they do get granola crunchy hippies to buy fake carbon credits and to identify a banana labeled as organic as "better tasting" when it is the other end of the same non-organic banana they tasted.
A decent show, but sometimes they themselves are full of shit and just plain wrong.
Agreed. They've even admitted to this in a few interviews and stated that they wanted to do an episode of Bullshit! about Bullshit! itself. One of the specific things i recall they mentioned was an episode (or part of one) they did about second-hand smoke.
Many episodes were also just filler to raise money for the bigger episodes where they wanted to tackle issues more thoroughly.
There were controversial episodes. But most of them were just making fun of nutty people.
They're fucking hilarious. As smart as they are, how could you not look across the world and laugh.
so... no more sassy urinals?
"Gender is an inherent identity"
Hopefully the misandry bubble is starting to pop!
I hope so too but I'm not betting on it.
I would say a better analogy is that it's not growing quite so fast anymore, perhaps because there is little room for it to grow. There is only so much power to be had in this world, and the elasticity of the feminist movement is coming to its limit. Like the rubber band that Harald uses as an analogy for the success of students in the second video, the rubber band of feminism is near its limit. Hopefully those who hold it in their hands will let go slowly and not bring things to a tearing point.
[permanently deleted]
https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6731035/Brainwash_-_Hjernevask
Download it, seed it forever - keep the truth out there. Being a public tracker, I'd suggest running a VPN.
It really is a great video series.
[permanently deleted]
If there is a torrent out there of the original that would be really useful too. I haven't found one though.
This is fucking awesome!
I can hear the hamster wheels spinning already in the American media.
I've seen the first part, never knew the rest existed though. Thanks for that, straight to the watch list.
pc culture (inc feminism) ruins shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrsF7wyUxs8&list=PLwRQEFL0Kbbqxnq1uaYaDk8ycCLDNuUcl
youtube playlist
A thank you, I was just having trouble viewing episode 5 on.
Amazing.
"he is seeing what he is looking for" while she doesn't present any sources for her hypothesis. even worse the guy who talked about missing links and wanting others to prove his hypothesis wrong as compared to himself proving it right (reminded me about creationists). My stomach hurts now.
If you only had time to watch one of those, which would you recommend?
They all touch on different angles but I'd go with the first one.
i haven't seen the others, but the first one is relevant to this sub, and demonstrates the hilariously poor foundation many social scientists use to present supposedly irrefutable truths.
Watch the one on sex. It discusses sexual strategy.
The first one discusses innate differences in male and female preferences in the work place.
Just watched Part 3; Gay / Straight - the gender studies people are getting annoyed now, and keep saying "it isn't interesting" as an answer to questions he asks. TBH they're beginning to sound like they know what they believe isn't true, like a religious freak just before the realisation and subsequent denunaction.
I'm not sure if it's all blind denial, it is their job in the end.
True, must be devastating to have a comedien ask you questions you can't answer. What I mean is that when the scientists were presented with counter arguements they didn't seem to get angry. When the socilogists were, you could sense they were getting irritated, then started just saying, "who cares" "it's not important / interesting"
[permanently deleted]
Password: hjernevask
What is the name of the comedian ??
Harald Eia, is how I believe you spell it.
This is amazing.
Commenting to watch later.
The gender studies people do exactly what they accuse the actual Science based studies of doing: Confirmation Bias. Their faux outrage is ridiculous and they have nothing but their own minds to backup their notions of 'equality'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
What I find amusing/depressing is they have NO INFORMATION to even confirm what they think.
http://vimeo.com/19921928
19:40
note that he references the Global Gender Gap report. (1:30 of first vid)
that report ain't about equality
They answer in the same way many feminists do when they don't like what they hear. Actually, lots of group answer this way, religious, liberals, capitalists etc...
Does anyone have a source that this film shut down gender studies in his country?
http://www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2012/homosexuality/nordic-countries-defund-gender-ideology/
Thanks.
Brainwashed indeed.
I've often thought that Scandinavia would be a perfect place if it would simply drop all the leftist garbage. Good step for their society.
Now they just have to do one on mass immigration and we're set.
Damn the NIKK moved to Sweden, well atleast they now have half the funding
http://www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/news/nikk-moves-to-sweden
awsome
Can someone explain to me what was the significance of the biological link of the effects of ones own biology and his or her sexual orientation and why the Norwegian people he was interviewing were constantly denying the biological link completely ?
I just don't get what the big deal is that there is a chance some people are born different ?
Because they want to see everyone as inherently equal. And being different implies that some people are actually "better" in some areas over others, which would imply that inequality is an inevitable outcome.
Fuck me, this guy proves EVERYTHING we've always said. Whenever somebody disagrees with us now we can just point them to those videos and they'll have everything explained by actual scientists themselves.
OK, I watched every episode in 2 days. It was a brilliant show, very interesting. Can someone tell me what the NIKK's response was during the days the show was aired and after? Their website is up and running but I can't seem to find anything old news articles.
ayo, vet. thanks for sharing these videos. i watched the first, and it's amazing. i'm doing remarkably well, and i hope you are too.
~<3
Some of the stuff out of Scandinavia is pretty absurd and depressing.
I like this quote: "And to a civilized man looking to enjoy the comforts of his home in peace, snarling undomesticated animals still belong outside."
Just watching the first one it proves more the influence isms can have on the perspective of the scientitific community more than anything else. Scandinavian researchers are going to be a self selecting group looking to support their BS concept of gender because of feminism. Same goes for atheism and socialism and Global Warming. They all impact the scientists or 'experts' looking to back up those theories (those 4 in particular) and if not deal with a huge amount of backlash. They go in knowing what they want to find.
What specifically is it about atheism, for example, that colours scientific inquiry? What theories are scientists looking to "back-up" from the point of view of atheism? I would have thought that the exact opposite was true, Christian "scientists" ignoring all the evidence to hand to back up their theories that the earth is 6000 years old, for example.
One example is the a-priori rejection of the big bang hypothesis due to it lending itself better to a theistic world view.
Another is the rejection of genetics due to it clashing with one of the tenets of scientific atheism (egalitarianism) in for example the soviet union.
The atheists that go into it to actively disprove god. They reveal a part of the universe that we are ignorant of and say 'See this disproves god' not 'This is a piece in the working of the Universe'. They then take it and parade around saying that essentially the creator idea of the uncaused cause is no longer valid which is usually nothing to do with what they were looking for in the first place. Meanwhile not only has the creator theory as an uncaused cause not even been dented it has not furthered their own concept, or lack thereof, of what the uncaused cause might be. So things are exactly as they were but now we have atheists parading around telling us in fact its not. They are misconstruing the science to suit their own purposes.
So are people who talk about the 6000 year old creation. There is no decided consensus even among creationists or even Christians and Jews what that means. Many of those that think literally everything kicked off 6,000 years ago ignore the subtlety and nuance of the Bible.
I just finished 2 of 7 and the only thing surprising to me so far is that apparently we're unique in our screen doors in America?
Is the idea of letting in a breeze without bugs truly lost on everyone else?
Freedom is a prerequisite to screen doors.
I thought that was pretty funny too. I would have thought those Scandinavians would be a bit more civilized. Plus, wouldn't they want an extra door in the cold climate, just for weatherproofing?
part 4 violence : "if boys and girls were raised exactly the same, do you think they would be equally violent?"
"I don't feel that is a very important question" <- whaaaaaaaaaat???? Hamster just created enough energy to fire the next round at the hadron collider.
20% of people down voted this????????
(shaking my head in bewilderment)
Reddit's voting system skews votes 70/30 to prevent bots from knowing if they did impact the rating.
I don't understand what you mean. Would you be able to clarify?
This does not prove gender studies is nonsense, it shows their being inconsistencies in the orthodox "social nurture theory" prominent in the second half of this century. Many, the majority even, of social scientists do acknowledge temperamental differences between boys and girls, without disqualifying theories on social reproduction of gender roles. When a new particle is discovered, disproving a theory we do not say physics is nonsense- it is improved and refined and the same thing exists with the study of genders. If anything the show showed that there is a lot more to learn about biological and social elements of gender.
As you can see the gender studies scientists are outright discounting any biological evidence, which is not only unscientific, but, as we see, empirically and factually incorrect. Gender studies is nonsense as far as trying to "rectify" the "inequalities" in society.
bookmarking so i can watch this evening.
Gah, I forgot why I stopped watching this last time. Those nurses are goddamn cunts.
Literally every study showed extreme variation. Why one is trying to pidgeonhole them into two groups is beyond me.