Swedish government bans science on gender differences

[trumptman]

Let me say in advance that I'm reading a translation of this article and drawing conclusions from that translation. I don't have the ability to translate it myself and if the person doing the translation has misrepresented the facts in any manner, then my own conclusions regarding those facts could change.

That said...

Ban on gender differences (http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2005/02/12.html#a6795)

Seems here that gender politics are being used to suppress scientific investigation and inquiry. Seems like it is also illegal to post the results of research that supports gender differences being genetic or even discuss gender differences as being anything other than societal. From the reading of the article I am unclear as to if this applies just to government literature of private research and publishing as well.

Anyone have any more information on this?

Nick

[Scott]

It seems to be a trend in oh so free thinking and enlightened europe these days. Censor anything that does not agree with government endorsed orthodox.

[a_greer]

New mother: "Well Doc, is the baby healthy?"
Doctor: "absolutely!"
Mom: "Is it a boy or girl?"
Doctor: "Gender diffferance studies in science is strictly prohibited, I cannot make that determination."
Mom: "ok let's talk in code, inny or outy?"
Doctor: "Nice try."


This is just asking for a hillarious DailyShow sketch, better set the VCR (or tivo if you are a rich republican) tomarrow night...it wil be a classic.

[dmz]

Practical outcomes, like this Swedish policy really show the fundamentally flawed approach of the materialist mindset -- "professing to be wise they became fools."


While members of the academy rush to consume "natural" foods and protect "nature" they simultaneously ignore and even avoid "human nature," especially in the sexual sphere where political intensity is greatest.
--Lionel Tiger
Darwin Professor of Anthropology, Rutgers University
President of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society

[Towel]

This is moronic, but before you folks get too wound up, focus on the line "the county government (länsstyrelsen) in Norrbotten". I can read Swede no better than Scott, but the blog's translation says it's this random county government, not the Swede national government, that's being so moronic. I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples of local government in the US being equally silly.

[dmz]

Towel, this business of gender roles as social construct is the party line for psychiatry.

[Gavriel]

The article never states that it is illegal in Sweden to do research on the differences between men and women, but it does point to an example where the swedish government refuses to sponsor the printing of a book which contains an interview with a scientist which claims that there are natural behavioural differences between genders. The official socialistic party-line in Sweden is that any differences in behaviour between man and women are there as part of a social-construction. Based on raising, culture, financial frames, powerstructures and political ideologi.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dmz
Towel, this business of gender roles as social construct is the party line for psychiatry 25 years ago. Fixenated.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Gavriel
The article never states that it is illegal in Sweden to do research on the differences between men and women, but it does point to an example where the swedish government refuses to sponsor the printing of a book which contains an interview with a scientist which claims that there are natural behavioural differences between genders. The official socialistic party-line in Sweden is that any differences in behaviour between man and women are there as part of a social-construction. Based on raising, culture, financial frames, powerstructures and political ideologi.

So are you saying it is misreported then because the article doesn't claim that a government simply won't sponsor the publication of the research. It states that it has censored and banned the publication of the research.

One of the reasons I write this is that the county government (länsstyrelsen) in Norrbotten has banned the publication of a book about gender equality because it contains an interview with a scientist who argues that the difference between men and women is not only caused by the environment, but a combination of inheritance and environment.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
How do you know what the article says?

I ask questions and read the translations of people, just like you.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Right, um, Gavriel didn't read no translation. :)

Correct. He also stated this.

The official socialistic party-line in Sweden is that any differences in behaviour between man and women are there as part of a social-construction. Based on raising, culture, financial frames, powerstructures and political ideologi.

I asked him to clarify if this meant that they would simply not sponsor the publication of the book, or would prohibit the publication of the book.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
That clarified?

Perhaps you should let the people to whom the questions are addressed answer them.

Nick

[Gavriel]

The article first claims that the publication of the book has been banned, but then later in the article that is clarified by saying that the government has demanded that the interview in question is removed from the book, or else they will not sponsor it and that would lead to the book not being published. So the swedish government doesn't prohibit research of gender differences, neither does it forbid the publication of such material, but it has, however, refused to finance the publication of a book with such content.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Gavriel
The article first claims that the publication of the book has been banned, but then later in the article that is clarified by saying that the government has demanded that the interview in question is removed from the book, or else they will not sponsor it and that would lead to the book not being published. So the swedish government doesn't prohibit research of gender differences, neither does it forbid the publication of such material, but it has, however, refused to finance the publication of a book with such content.

Anyway we could get some more info on what type of book will now not be published?

Nick

[Gavriel]

Originally posted by trumptman
Anyway we could get some more info on what type of book will now not be published?

Nick

I'm not exactly clear on what you're asking for here?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Gavriel
I'm not exactly clear on what you're asking for here?

I'm simply trying to find out what the nature of the book not being published happens to be. In otherwords is this information likely to still be published in Sweden in some other context or if the refusal to publish this information means that most people will now not have access to it.

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
I'm simply trying to find out what the nature of the book not being published happens to be. In otherwords is this information likely to still be published in Sweden in some other context or if the refusal to publish this information means that most people will now not have access to it.

Nick
Why did you start this thread? Why does some wrong-headed policy making in Sweden concerning the publication of another book on gender differences concern you more than, say, the embargo on stem cell research in your own country?

[Anders]

Originally posted by trumptman
I'm simply trying to find out what the nature of the book not being published happens to be. In otherwords is this information likely to still be published in Sweden in some other context or if the refusal to publish this information means that most people will now not have access to it.

Nick

Despite what people think scandinavian countries are not socialists and all publishers are privately owned (sans those publishing governmental material and universities). Anyone can publish whatever they want. But sometimes those who are entrusted with governmental powers doesn´t understand the idea that those who give money to research, art and culture should not decide what the contents of those activities should be.

Thats why I am proud that according to the law about local broadcasting the local authorities have to give money to a local nazi radio station (that is quite ridicules and no-one listen to) and frustrated over the fact other local authorities have refused to give money to an exhibition over immigration influence on local culture because the organizers refused to include data over the unemployment rate of the immigrants.

[Gon]

Originally posted by Anders
Despite what people think scandinavian countries are not socialists and all publishers are privately owned (sans those publishing governmental material and universities). Anyone can publish whatever they want. But sometimes those who are entrusted with governmental powers doesn´t understand the idea that those who give money to research, art and culture should not decide what the contents of those activities should be.It's just rediculous to put money into something you have absolutely no control over. On the other hand you are correct in that the government should not say anything about how the money is used. The reason? It's not their money. They didn't earn it.

Maybe the government should just stop collecting that money from its rightful owners, who are qualified to make judgments about its use?

[Anders]

Originally posted by Gon
On the other hand you are correct in that the government should not say anything about how the money is used. The reason? It's not their money. They didn't earn it.


Exactly. Its not those in powers pet projects that should benefit from that kind of redistribution. A lot of science would not be made if they could pick and choose what kind that should be made and how it should be conducted. Those who have knowledge in the field should have that power (and yes it opens up a whole new discussion on mainstream science vs. other kinds but that can never be a reason to have politicians or administrators do the picking).

i think its its a good idea to have some kind of governmental redistribution to benefit science. Some kinds of science would never be done without governmental support. The invincible hand simply doesn´t work good enough in all areas, especially not areas where the benefits won´t show itself in the short time range and areas that simply could not be fiscally exploited.

[Gon]

Originally posted by Anders
i think its its a good idea to have some kind of governmental redistribution to benefit science. Some kinds of science would never be done without governmental support. The invincible hand simply doesn´t work good enough in all areas, especially not areas where the benefits won´t show itself in the short time range and areas that simply could not be fiscally exploited. It's not all up to businesses and profit motive, though they can certainly do most of the important research. I also think about private donors. Historically the benefactor-researcher, benefactor-artist models have produced an amazing amount of quality work. When it's one person or just a few people who support you out of their free will, you have a great deal of responsibility. If you are directly supporting someone, you are probably very interested in his work and progress. These things are where the efficiency comes from. People like giving; more people would give and they would give more if they retained more of their own money to give.

Right now I'm not in a position to give, no job. But if I get one, I'll put a fixed part of my income where my mouth is.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by Anders
Exactly. Its not those in powers pet projects that should benefit from that kind of redistribution. A lot of science would not be made if they could pick and choose what kind that should be made and how it should be conducted. Those who have knowledge in the field should have that power (and yes it opens up a whole new discussion on mainstream science vs. other kinds but that can never be a reason to have politicians or administrators do the picking).

i think its its a good idea to have some kind of governmental redistribution to benefit science. Some kinds of science would never be done without governmental support. The invincible hand simply doesn´t work good enough in all areas, especially not areas where the benefits won´t show itself in the short time range and areas that simply could not be fiscally exploited.
I already knew that famous hand was supposed to be invisible (albeit not always transparent), now it's invincible too? In hoc mano vinces?
Hmmm… cheirocracy. That doesn't sound quite right.

Other than that I mostly agree with you in this specific case, while keeping an extra eye on “those who have the knowledge” just as I would all those who happen to have some power (just so they don't get too much of it).

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Why did you start this thread? Why does some wrong-headed policy making in Sweden concerning the publication of another book on gender differences concern you more than, say, the embargo on stem cell research in your own country?

Actually one might help explain the other. I don't know how the system works in Sweden in this instance and it is why I tried to be careful and not draw any hard judgements while still asking for more information.

In the United States, government funded research is limited to the existing available stem cell lines. Private research can still use new lines.

This is characterized as a ban on stem cell research, which is wrong in my view.

My initial view is that not being willing to share valid research about gender differences is pretty much a bad thing. However I don't know all the variables about this scenario. It is why I keep asking for more information.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
That's an evasive sentence construction known as passive voice. I want to know just "who" is falsely characterizing the ban against federally funded stem-cell research?

Actually passive voice is most appropriate in this instance. You call it being evasive. I call it focusing on what is affected by the action instead of who initiated it. I don't desire to assign blame or drag the thread off topic in ths instance so I do not focus on who is doing the action, rather on the results. If you want focus on who initiated it, start a thread on it, don't derail this one.

If I focused on the actor, or who was doing the action, then the sentence would have created a prime opportunity to drag the thread off-topic. :lol: You desire to do that anyway. (see active, now I'm blaming the actor, you ;) )

You do enjoy your little word fetish with regard to my postings.:lol:

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Answer the question that you left open. Who is mischaracterizing the ban against federally funded stem cell research (on non approved lines)?
ME! I AM! IT'S MEEEEE!!!!!!!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Answer the question that you left open. Who is mischaracterizing the ban against federally funded stem cell research (on non approved lines)?

If you want focus on who initiated it, start a thread on it, don't derail this one.

[trumptman]

BTW there was a follow up reply by the blog author that added some more information..

This is obviously far less serious than a situation where the government outright bans the publication of a book at pain of imprisonment (or worse). The state withholding funds is less serious, but you have to remember in a country like Sweden, nothing in education or arts happen without the government adding money. In this case, the government pleaded money to a book project run by a heavily government-subsidised theatre, and then pulled out because the book contained ideologically heretical science. Thus there will be no book. If the government pulled out money from that theatre, it would cease to exist (that almost happened a couple of years back, because of some normal budget cuts). In Scandinavia, the role of the government in education, research and arts is so huge and dominating, that the government can gag ideas by pulling funding. In this single case, the press was awake and the ideas come out anyway. There are cracks in the armour, but it's a problem that should not be underestimated.

I guess this might lead to a discussion about if the government owns the press, do they basically own the speech it produces as well, and as a result can it truly be free?

While trying to find some more sources about this story I stumbled across a follow up to an arrest of a swedish pastor that happened several months ago.

Pastor acquitted (http://www.acl.org.au/home/browse.stw?article_id=2085)

Seems the Swedes have quite the authoritarian edge lately on speech matters.

Nick

[dmz]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Answer the question that you left open. Who is mischaracterizing the ban against federally funded stem cell research (on non approved lines)?


That is embryonic stem cell reasearch. Not stem cell research in general.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yeah right. Try not making claims you can't substantiate next time. Otherwise, don't bring it up in the first place.

Grow up.

After looking into this further, I've decided that government is absolutely insane to not encourage research in this area. Sweden appears to have the strongest gender equality laws you possible, yet standard problems like the wage gap still show up. When you don't have policy or socialization creating these differences, other factors, like simple biology ought to be examined.

Nick

[BRussell]

A perhaps parallel example in the US occurred 10 years ago when a conference that included a session on heredity and violence was cancelled, almost certainly because it was considered an "incorrect" topic. I couldn't find a direct source about it, because it was pre-intarweb, but here's an indirect link (http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/dv02.htm) about it.

And it looks like the president of Harvard might be out of a job for saying that he believes gender differences are biological.

I understand the carefulness about the issue, but the solution is not to try to stamp out the ideas. The solution is to confront it directly. What if gender differences, or even racial differences, really are partially hereditary? Then what? Do we open the concentration camps? Of course not. We learn to respect diversity, to use the proper buzz words. But burying our heads in the sand about it doesn't help, it hurts.

[sammi jo]

Seems the Swedes have quite the authoritarian edge lately on speech matters.

Nick [/B]

As in "Swedes had better watch out what they are saying"?

:grumble:

[New]

Originally posted by trumptman

I guess this might lead to a discussion about if the government owns the press, do they basically own the speech it produces as well, and as a result can it truly be free?

While trying to find some more sources about this story I stumbled across a follow up to an arrest of a swedish pastor that happened several months ago.

Seems the Swedes have quite the authoritarian edge lately on speech matters.

Nick

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You really don't know shit about what your discussing... Please do some research on Scandinavia or something, or at least post in a less "self-certain" tone. You're making a fool of yourself.

Ofcourse everything is not state
in Sweden. If you want to print a book, go to a publisher, see if they think it will sell. In addition to that, you can try to get government funding. Government sponsorship gives scandinavia the highest rate of published books and papers per. capita in the world. Not everything is sponsored however. In the end these decissions are made by people appointed by the democratically elected politicians. Get it?

On your pastor; yes we have stronger laws on hate speech, (democratically correctly created laws), but the pastor was acquitted right? Generally I'd expect scandinavia to be rated far better on free speech than the US. I'll see if I can find any research on that.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by New
:lol: :lol: :lol:

You really don't know shit about what your discussing... Please do some research on Scandinavia or something, or at least post in a less "self-certain" tone. You're making a fool of yourself.

Ofcourse everything is not state
in Sweden. If you want to print a book, go to a publisher, see if they think it will sell. In addition to that, you can try to get government funding. Government sponsorship gives scandinavia the highest rate of published books and papers per. capita in the world. Not everything is sponsored however. In the end these decissions are made by people appointed by the democratically elected politicians. Get it?

On your pastor; yes we have stronger laws on hate speech, (democratically correctly created laws), but the pastor was acquitted right? Generally I'd expect scandinavia to be rated far better on free speech than the US. I'll see if I can find any research on that.

There are plenty of matters in this thread on which I have claimed incomplete understanding and asked for more information. Complaining about my "tone" is sort of ridiculous when the words within them make my intention clear.

I did do research and mentioned that Sweden appears to have just about the strongest gender equity laws in the world. Yet as is true with most socialist notions, passing a law just doesn't make it so. Certain measure, for example the wage gap exist in Sweden regardless of numerous laws that would appear to make it impossible. This means the nature of the problem is outside of realm of government and laws to solve. When government begins to hinder areas that might solve this problem, they really hinder their own goals.

As for the free speech matter, you are right that he was acquitted and there was even a similar incident where four people were arrested at a homosexual rights rally here in the U.S. and acquitted as well. Both incidents do indicate a chill air in the area of free speech in my view.

Nick