This is not a blog you should come to, if you want to encounter a neatly packaged bunch of received political ideas that conform to any convenient label. If you can only stand views that do not offend the “right” or the “left”, or which stay within the confines of the “politically correct”, then go read elsewhere.
Recently I have taken on the shibboleths of ultra feminism, in response to a series of articles published in the Guardian by feminist writers on the Assange and DSK cases, and on Kenneth Clarke’s remarks on rape. The writers in question – including for example Eve Ensler and Zoe Williams – self-describe as feminist writers. I am not applying the description to them.
My views on these matters plainly cross what is viewed as a boundary of acceptable or conventional thought for some of my regular commentators. It is therefore sensible of me to set out those views in a logical form here, so we can identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and try to consider with each other whether any of us wish to reconsider our views.
First, on feminism in general. I recognise that there is a power imbalance in society to the detriment of women. The glass ceiling still is firmly in place. Alpha male behaviour is still overly rewarded by the cutthroat system on which our political economy is organised, to general detriment. We really do have a society where male sociopaths dominate; Tony Blair is its poster boy.
I think that palliative measures on female equality, for example on equal pay, have been a good and important thing. But they have not even achieved their limited objective, nor succesfully tackled the difficulties of women in achieving power and promotion. I do not believe, in any sense, that women’s lack of power in society is because they should rightly be concentrating on subsidiary roles, either as homemakers or in the workforce.
But I believe that palliative measures have done pretty well all they can to improve this situation, and that no fundamental change is possible unless we reform our society itself to one which operates on a more cooperative model and in which consumption, wealth and waste of resources are not the primary goals. Then aggression and selfishness will not be rewarded as they now are.
I do believe that there are differing masculine and feminine personality traits, and that it is true that cooperative and empathectic behaviour is viewed as more feminine. But there is of course massive overlap within male and female populations, and there are many men who are also disadvantaged within the present system by their more societal attitude – just as there are female Rebekah Brooks (Update I can see I am going to have to keep doing this as it is very difficult to reason with feminist ideologues. In response to a comment, I am plainly putting forward Rebekah Brooks here as the female equivalnet of Tony Blair who I cite above, the ultra-succesful sociopath. I am not saying that all career women are like Rebekah Brooks.)- but a balance of disadvantage lies currently with women.
But- when it comes to sexuality itself, I think that sexuality is a wonderful fact of existence, which should be celebrated in full. I applaud any form of pleasure giving cooperation, that does not harm others, between consenting adults. But I do not regard sex as in any way sacred or mystic.
I believe that sexuality is just another human trait which people should be able to use, if they so choose, for economic gain, just as they can use their muscles or intellect in other ways. I therefore have no problem with prostitution, striptease, or advertising images. The coercion and violence which often accompanies prostitution could largely be remedied (as with drugs) by legalisation and regulation. If people wish to sell their sexuality, I believe they have a right to do so.
Nobody should ever be forced to.
Rape is a terrible crime. I believe that it should receive a very long jail sentence indeed. My view is that custodial sentences – as opposed to other punishment – should be reserved only for those who are a danger of committing violence to others. Non-violent crime should be punished in other ways. Rape is a violent crime and society should rightly be protected from rapists by long jail sentences. However, Kenneth Clarke was right; every crime can have aggravating or mitigating circumstances, even murder. There is nothing sacramental about rape that makes it different to murder and mystically unified, incapable of being worsened by use of a weapon, death threats, duration of offence etc.
For some feminists rape is not just a disgusting and violent crime, but a totemic act, indicative of wider male domination of women in society. There is some correlation (though not absolute) between this view, and sex-negative feminism, which views the act of penetration itself as an act of male dominance, and regards feminine heterosexuality as in itself tending to enforce a submissive role in society. This feminist tendency is completely opposed to the use of female sexuality by women for commercial gain, and thus virulently opposed to prostitution, stripping, advertising images, etc.
These sex-negative feminists have what I would call a dog-whistle response to allegations of rape, tending to an immediate presumption that the man must be guilty – this blog has previously pointed to a number of such articles on both Julian Assange and DSK, of which yesterday’s really badly researched article by Liz Willams can stand as an example – in which they are undoubtedly arguing that the man is guilty. They also argue for a lower standard of proof in rape trials than other criminal trials.
I have an extreme aversion to this line of argument. It is extremely unfortunate that rape will always be, in most cases, a hard crime to prove, for reasons which are obvious. But plainly false allegations of rape do exist, and the evil of false conviction is so great we have to continue to give the benefit of doubt to the defendant. If that principle disappeared in rape trials, other categories would soon follow.
The political establishment frequently uses sexual allegations against threatening dissidents to discredit them. That was done against me, it is what was done by Murdoch to Tommy Sheridan, it is being done against Julian Assange, and there is strong reason to believe it may be what is being done against DSK. Here are some facts I did not refer to yesterday.
The suite which Diallo entered after the alleged rape was empty and adjoined DSK’s suite, with a party wall. She had entered it twice with her electronic keycard before going to DSK’s suite, and she entered it again after the alleged rape. She had consistently lied about what she did after the alleged rape, and only admitted she had entered the adjoining suite after shown the electronic keycard record. She then changed her story to say she had returned and cleaned it – which begs the question, what had she done in there the previous two times?
This is important because the keycard records show that the hotel general manager himself had entered, rather surprisingly, that same adjoining suite that morning, before the alleged rape. As the records do not show when someone left, we do not know if he met her in there, or if he was in there during the consensual or forced sexual encounter next door. What we do know is that he telephoned the Elysee Palace before the alleged rape was reported to the police, and briefed Sarkozy’s aides.
Why I get so completely infuriated with the Enslers and Williams of this world is that they don’t stop to think why Assange or DSK or Sheridan might suddenly find themselves exposed to this kind of attack. Has the far left just gained in the Scottish Parliament its most important electoral positions in the UK for decades? Is Wikileaks threatening the whole edifice of US official secrecy, illegal killing and duplicitous foreign policy? Is the IMF being steered gently leftwards at a time of huge currency crises for the West?
The ultra, sex negative feminists cannot even start to consider that they ought perhaps to consider if there is a wider context. If the accusation is sexual then they automatically obey the dog whistle.. Of course the woman is telling the truth! And they fill the columns and airwaves to the delight of the right extablishment, whose obedient attack dogs the ultra feminists have become.
That is, of course, why the allegations are always sexual. They do so much more damage, in so many ways. The strange thing is, that if DSK or Assange had been accused of anything else, like robbing a Post Office (remember Peter Hain?), people like HarpyMarx would be extremely suspicious. But throw in a bit of sex, and the stupid idiots dance immediately to the right’s tune.
The first thing to distinguish is the inherent difference between the terms ‘women’ and feminists. The left are incapable of this distinction, just as the Nazis were incapable of distinguishing themselves from Germans.
.
The next thing to realise, is that evolution is smarter than the ‘left’; therefore, any attempt to politically change the human condition, will probably be detrimental. So feminists, keep your hands off our women and children!
I used to climb trees as a child. I did “boys” subjects at school and university. I worked in the City in a role few women did. I like doing woodwork. I’m numerate, logical, scientific…
And I take immense exception to being compared to a sociopath like Rebekah Brooks!
(In fact, I’m sure some would argue that throwaway comment says something about how you “really” think women should be feminine girlies even if many, many are not that way naturally – which is, of course, a deeply oppressive view in itself.)
By the way, you don’t have to be an ultra sex-negative feminist to think Assange has a lot of questions to answer!
Your entire post is built on a faulty premise. You are assuming that those who have abandoned their commitments to rationality and justice in favour of an ideology can be engaged in meaningful discussion. You will be harangued and vilified until you submit to their worldview.
Good point Enki,
.
Being reasonable to the ‘statists’ is pissing in the wind. Or as Karl Popper more eloquently put it:
.
“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
Tigger,
I am quite positive that Rebekah Brooks was not the woodwork and tree climbing tupe, so don’t worry!
I agree with Enki and with Tiggers point on Julian Assange. If he had consensus sex, he must have had an arrangement about condoms, he is an intelligent, albeit computer damaged, soul who has spent his time in front of a screen for too long one could assume. To have an illusion of grandeur and no care in the world when one is having sex with a ‘consensual’ female partner, is something he will have to answer for, now that he has made this his defense.
In no way does this detract from the swedish prosecutors mistakes, or devalue other points about the validity of his wikileaks operation, as it is he is just another man amongst many who can’t overule his peckerdillo’s with his brain.
Did you mean to say Zoe Williams?
I am generaly in sympathy with the points you made in your piece about Zoey williams – her article was like so many Guardian opinion pieces completely lacking in rigour. It is also true that the feminist lobby can be destructive of reputations and careers and that political correctness is an Idol, in the old Testament sense, which sweeps away logic and proportion on occasion.
–
Whether this makes it as big a negative force as Murdoch and what he represents I doubt.
Mary,
I did indeed. Corrected, with apologies to all the Liz Williams out there!!
In respect of male/female differences, the evidence points to gender difference being 99.999% cultural. I recommend R W Connell’s “Gender” (Polity, 2002). Connell discusses a major review of “gender difference” research, which he/she* describes as a misnoma. Where psychological differences exist between men and women, they pale into insignificance when compared to the scope of difference within gender. Connell also analyses why this evidence is still widely ignored.
As for “sex negative feminists” – yes, they exist, if you want to call them that(see Alsop et al’s Theorizing Gender), but I would suggest they are a marginal force within feminism. Why fling this pejorative label at people you disagree with? The arguments should speak for themselves, so let’s step back from demonizing your opponents, or indeed those feminists who feel the oppression of patriarchy so intensely it compels them to respond in every aspect of their lives.
* Connell was Robert when he wrote the book. She is now called Raewyn.
That your views are challenging and controversial is one of the attractive features of your blog, Craig. When the Dominique Strauss-Kahn accusation was first reported I was suspicious, partly because he was MD of the IMF, and his removal made it convenient to replace him with someone more right wing; and partly because of the recent and ludicrous attempt to besmirch the character of Julian Assange, to whom the whole world is indebted.
The progress of women is something everybody should welcome since they form at least half the population of the planet. But just as there are extreme men, Blair, Murdoch, Hitler there are women who are just as aggressive and nasty in their own ways, Thatcher for example. There are so many incompatibilities between the sexes it’s a wonder we ever reproduce. Men are at their sexual prime at about 18, women at about 35. Men are sexually ready most of the time while for women it is a few days a month. We enjoy different hobbies. But in general we try for each other’s sake to get along – and that means compromise.
What bothers me is rudeness – whether that comes from those, male or female, who do not respond to communications or pull forward into the parking space you were about to reverse into. As a mature student from 1980-83 I caught the whip-end of women’s lib, and it was nasty. I had no opposition to women burning their bras (in fact it made a pleasant diversion) but when I held open a door for one young woman, (I did the same for men), I was gob-smacked by her remark. “Do you think I’m not capable of opening the door for myself!” This was one of the ultra sex negative feminists to which you allude.
I am still of the opinion that women are just as competent as men, and I was back then. At Birmingham University Labour Party meetings I stood alone in opposing positive discrimination, that is, “We must have a majority of women on the committee” because of the equal competence of both sexes. It would have been much better if those who had been willing to serve had been appointed because in the end they were unable to get enough women involved, and I left the group. But I learnt then, and still believe, that women, in general, do not want to be involved in public affairs to the same extent as men. But when they do get involved they are just as open to corruption and bad practice, as Rebekah Brooks has shown. As you say rape is a difficult accusation to prove, and because it is only committed by one of the sexes, it gives the ultra sex negative feminists, as you call them, ammunition for their grievances.
I just love Ingo’s spelling of peckerdillos. A kind of amalgam of a slang word for a penis with a Freudian reference to dildos?? Not getting at you Ingo,just amused.
.
The fault in this DSK business is the way in which the US legal system operates which allowed all these preliminaries to emerge and to get round the media thus allocating guilt to both sides. We would not be privy to any of it if the alleged rape had happened here. The facts would be left to a judge and jury to decide upon. Which is the better system?
Yakoub Islam,
Thank you for a very reasoned contribution. I don’t think that it makes any difference to my general argument whether differences in masculine and feminine personality traits are genetically or environmentally acquired. We are where we are, and they exist. Except that, presumably if society were to be changed in the way I advocate, that might tend to reduce these differences over time if Ms Connell is correct.
I rather like your description of “those feminists who feel the oppression of patriarchy so intensely it compels them to respond in every aspect of their lives.” The problem is, they are dangerously unbalanced individuals who do much harm. And my sympathy for them is limited because, like Ms Zoe Williams of the Guardian who went to a very expensive private school and uses private medicine, the vociferous column writers among them to whom I particularly object have been privileged to lead lives where they suffer a great deal less oppression – of all kinds – than the great majority of people in this life.
One thing you probably do not know about me is that I really do spend a very great deal of my time working practically to help the oppressed, and there are a number of people in need of one kind of another living with us much of the time. There will be eight Central Asians sleeping here tonight, for example. Where I am sitting writing in my house was last week occupied by a victim of domestic violence and her children, escaping – who I had never met before. I do not normally publicise these things, but I am being made out to be a bad person because I have taken on the untouchable shibboleths of feminist ideology. The reason I want to say it now to you is that I have met women who really have suffered and who are, in some cases, bitter at all men, even me who is helping. I can of course make allowances. But I cannot characterise comfortable ideologues, wealthier than me and sharing less than me, as victims just because they are female.
John Goss wrote: “There are so many incompatibilities between the sexes it’s a wonder we ever reproduce.”
.
The reason gender equality is such a an unnatural and, paradoxically, divisive issue, is that men and women have evolved differently due to symbiosis. The genders are complementary, and not clones.
.
The sexual proclivities of the genders also aid and abet these necessary differences; women choose men’s characteristics in their selection, and men, likewise choose women’s characteristics in their selection; otherwise we’d all be androgynous.
.
It has been speculated that Homo Sapiens succeeded over the Neanderthals owing to the latter not having the advantage of gender disparity that the Sapiens had.
.
Either way, evolution is not wrong, therefore feminism is.
The Ken Clarke rape furore was the tipping point for me, and reminded me of the response to the excellent Brass-eye satire on paedophilia. Because the topic is so emotively sensitive, the reaction generally missed entirely the point of what was in fact quite sensible, sometimes even banal, commentary.
On the specifics of what you call ultra-feminism, I find the conflation of sexual violence and philandering really obscene. And the only lasting effect of doing this it seems, is that it will succeed in undermining the seriousness of the crime of rape.
I applaud what you write about this topic, there’s stuff I’d be interested to debate (“differing masculine and feminine personality traits” – another nature vs nurture conundrum?), but in the end it seems to me you are protecting misguided women’s equality advocates from themselves.
In my mind there is (unwarranted probably?) association between feminism and the silly toilet seat up/down argument 🙂 I confess I have never paid much attention to the feminist cause. Of course, I believe that women should have the same opportunities as men so I suppose I share that conviction with all feminists.
.
But, I find the ‘equal opportunities must lead to equal outcomes’ line of argument simplistic and damaging. Why should this be the case? Surely, equality of outcomes must have as preconditions equality of desires and abilities. No one in their right mind will argue that men and women desire the same things in life. When I started my electronics engineering course, out of some 70 students there were 6 young women. In the final year, there were 2. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but this kind of anecdote is common. Boys and girls, women and men, in general find different things interesting and that will surely have an effect on the outcomes. Cultural programming cannot account for all of such differences.
.
And here is an inconvenient fact for the proponents of ‘equality of outcomes’ – human brain size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size . It is an accepted tenet of evolutionary biology that brain is an expensive resource. An average difference of some 10% between male and female brain size is not trivial. (Please refrain at this point from drawing rash conclusions about average intelligence – ‘intelligence’ is not uncontroversially and easily quantifiable). However, it does limit the scope of any claims of ‘by default’ mental equivalence between the sexes.
Evgeni
The difference in brain size between male and female relates simply to the difference in overall body size. But there is no evidence to correlate that to a real difference in capability.
One of the frontal lobes (left, I think) of my brain was killed off when I fell from a substantial height onto tarmac as a toddler. I have less volume of working brain than I ought. I agree that IQ is a controversial thing – all it measures is your ability to take IQ tests – but I last had mine measured at 187 (while at university, part of a psychology course). A bit more or less brain is not really that important.
Indeed Evgueni, not only are the brains different in size, but also in structure. The man’s amygdala is significantly larger than a woman’s. Men have more grey cells, and women have more white cells (the connective tissue of the corpus callosum etc).
.
Men are hunters and warriors from ancestry; therefore have better skills for this, such as the dynamic empathy necessary for team assaults, and tactical reactions.
.
Women have to forage greedily between each other, and yet provide generously amongst their own. This maybe why their heightened sympathies are exaggerated. The corpus callosum is a nifty way of separating these seemingly contradictory functions of greed and generosity. A faulty corpus callosum, is often associated with schizophrenia and similar mental aberrations.
“I rather like your description of “those feminists who feel the oppression of patriarchy so intensely it compels them to respond in every aspect of their lives.” –Craig
.
There are misogynists — and I don’t mean you necessarily, Craig, but we have seen them commenting here — who seem to feel the ‘oppression’ of what they consider ‘feminism’ so intensely it compels them to respond in every aspect of theirs.
.
“The problem is, they are dangerously unbalanced individuals who do much harm.”
.
Exactly.
.
“It is an accepted tenet of evolutionary biology that brain is an expensive resource. An average difference of some 10% between male and female brain size is not trivial. (Please refrain at this point from drawing rash conclusions about average intelligence – ‘intelligence’ is not uncontroversially and easily quantifiable).”–evgueni
.
I don’t draw rash conclusions but perhaps you do. Recent research has shown that the further people live from the equator, the bigger their brains. It has nothing to do with ability or intelligence, it is because they require extra brain capacity to deal with the lesser amount of light.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/07July/Pages/brain-eye-size-distance-to-equator.aspx
.
“However, it does limit the scope of any claims of ‘by default’ mental equivalence between the sexes.”
.
That’s what I call a rash conclusion.
Craig wrote: “One of the frontal lobes (left, I think) of my brain was killed off when I fell from a substantial height onto tarmac as a toddler.”
.
Damage or dysfunction to the right frontal lobe, has been linked to psychopathic tendencies.
.
😮
Pingback: Thoughts on Craig Murray « Harpymarx
Craig: To repeat some of my post on the thread below: so, if you go to a minor public school and Oxford and use private medicine, this damns you and your argument, but if you go to a grammar school and Durham, this gives the right to slur feminists and feminism? Where was Strauss-Kahn educated? Do you think he uses private medicine? Do I hear the sound of a barrel being scraped.
These are not really ‘thoughts on feminism’ (above). They are thoughts on misandry. Not only is it clumsy to denigrate an honourable movement by using clumsy terms like ‘ultra feminism’ or ‘sex negative feminism’ or even ‘ultra sex negative feminism’ now, I see, it makes a nonsense of any discussion. It also, by default, allows misandrists a tenuous form of legitimacy which they do not deserve. Understanding and sympathy, yes, but not legitimacy. As Yakoub says, they are an entirely marginal force: encourage them if you wish, just as you are encouraging the misogynists. I suppose it makes for good traffic.
I celebrate any defence of happy sensual consensual sexuality, and agree that the Puritan press are driving to suppress it (though this is nothing new). But there are a number of errors and assumptions in your post – feminists who are against corporate exploitation of women’s bodies must also consider sex a ‘totemic act’, for example. I also fail to see any correlation between a right wing attack on Assange and a supposed ‘soft left’ (?) attack on Strauss-Kahn. But finally, and most sadly, I see you feel entitled to give up on the struggle for equality because you have decided that equality is not possible until you construct some kind of brave new world. It might explain why you feel free to attack feminism, but surely it should be the other way round: only by continuing the struggle will such a world be built.
Hate to say it Craig but taking the “I’m more prole than you are!” stance is not something you can really pull off.
It is easy to limit the definition of rape to having to be violent- but then, where is the boundary between sex and violence? This may seem a bit of a cliche but there is an element of violence in sex itself in the rubbing and forcing and pulling and pushing, biting and squeezing…you get the point.
Hence sex as an act is a pleasant type of violence and this paradox is the crux of the rape debate. This is why a sexual act that you are subjected to without your consent is a violation of your privacy, your body and your integrity, and therefore is violence. Or are you suggesting that only at a certain degree of violence is in fact violence? This would be tantamount to saying “I didn’t slap her/him- i just stroked her/his face really fast and hard”.
Also there are reasons why a person could and would not fight back and succumb to forced sex- maybe they havn’t been taught how or fear physical violence from the stronger party. Whether it is something you personally would do or not, you could not fault a person for reacting less valiantly when face-to-face with aggression, similar as the way someone reacts when a gun is pointed to their head-the reaction will be a very personal, based on training, experience, self-confidence, upbringing, state-of-mind (was the victim drugged). This is why the “no” is imperative.
This is a difficult one to debate without listening to the experiences of the survivors of what would probably be called “non-violent” rape. There is the same deep trauma- shame, disgust, disassociation, disenfranchisement from the body as in other types of rape…just minus the physical signs of violence.
I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of Assange and consent to condoms, this actually might be grounds for a new criteria out of the scope of rape, or it might not be rape at all but that’s not for me to say.
Apart from this issue I agree with your post and that too often men are assumed guilty and women use false allegations of rape to ruin men’s reputations. I think these women are the worst thing that could happen to women and is against what feminism stands for…like the boy who cried wolf. It’s disrespect of the highest degree and should be punished and frowned upon. It discredits the real victims.
(Also it is not rape if you have consensual sex and next day regret it for whatever reason, that’s not a matter for the courts but for your own conscience. )
However there’s a lack of understanding by men of what non-consentual sex is and why it is damaging- i draw this conclusion because I have had endless debates about this with male friends…and men must understand and respect this issue of consent, as well as live it in practice, which is admittedly very difficult. If it means not sleeping with a girl who is drunk off her head, stopping after a kiss when the motor’s hot and running…these are all massive challenges (I’ve been told that it’s especially so to a man).
Thanks Mary, it was a deliberate amalgam, because it fits. I just love to mangle the language, it amuses me, and if it fits the purpose, apply it.
As for your brain, it is also an extension of your skin, both are the last two bits developed in the womb, connecting the nevrous tissues in the right place, or not. Skin and brain belong together.
That said, I shall have a little break, its getting too testy here and i feel as if we are arguing the toos about unlaid eggs.
Thanks for that link dreolin, take care all.
Technicolour
I did not mean that we should give up on the struggle for equality before the creation of a better world; I meant that we can all see such measures have regrettably limited effect. But I did not mean to imply we should stop trying. I was charting my own political thought journey to realising that society needs to be changed more fundamentally than I used to envisage
Human Person
I don’t believe all rape involves physical force to overpower. It could involve blackmail, for example. But sex with an unwilling person is always a violent act.
Your attempt to construe any physical contact between humans, as violence is casuistry and to proceed from that to an assertion that all penetrative sex can be characterised as violent is to proceed beyond the normal sense of the language.
If the allegations are “always sexual” (by which stunted phrase I expect you mean accusations of sexual misconducts and/or allegations of sexual assault), where’s the rape case against James Murdoch?
Two cases of rape allegations have broken into the media mainstream, from which little knowledge you draw some dangerously nonsensical conclusions (pitting your frankly shallow understanding of the underlying discourse against the arguable experts – feminists).
Stripped of names and alleged offences, the oft-repeated assertion that when an allegation of crime against a person is made, we should automatically prefer a superstructure of conspiracy, political undercurrents and skulduggery to the parsimonious explanation: that a crime may have been committed, is not only nakedly political, but frankly irrational.
Graig,
I was not specifically thinking of IQ but of any measure of intelligence that could be attempted, ‘objective’ or subjective. I am aware of the dark eugenics origins of IQ-testing from reading War Against the Weak by Edwin Black. Never had the chance to test mine but suspect it is disappointingly average 🙂 Anyway brain size must have been under selection pressure in our evolutionary past, so to dismiss the differences lightly on the basis of a dubious hypothesis won’t do. Where I was leading with this (must remember to spell it out in future) is to the concept of *inclusive fitness* – i.e. it is not all about ‘intelligence’, when survival and reproduction rates are the measure of (evolutionary) success.
.
Anyone seeking to understand the true nature of the relationship between the sexes ought to be made to study evolutionary sciences, in particular sexual selection. Otherwise the discussion becomes rather tedious.
.
Dreolin,
happy to disagree with you on this, and surprisingly, agree with JimmyGiro – evolution knows not right or wrong. Your position is rather dogmatic, your reaction appears reflexive. Unless, of course, you misunderstood my point and you were reacting to one that I had not made. The point you make about brain size correlation with latitude is irrelevant, here is why: elephants have bigger brains than humans but this does not invalidate the hypothesis that brain is an expensive resource.
MarinaS,
I was specifically talking of recent allegations against left-wing or progressive figures who have become a threat to the establishment. I don’t think the Murdochs fall into that category.