Sue Bradford and her new Feminist Doctorate
I received this from Barbara Faithful and thought it worth sharing with others.
According to the N.Z.Herald of June 11th former Green M.P., Maoist communist, and champion of a child’s “right” not to be smacked, Sue Bradford, is doing a doctorate in public policy “with Professor Marilyn Waring at Auckland University of Technology”. Talk about birds of a feather!
Back in 1988 N.Z. was being beseiged with scaremongering advertisements containing bogus, feminist-contrived child sex abuse figures (1 in 3 or 4 girls abused by their fathers etc.) to promote the June 1988 Telethon, proceeds of which were mainly to go to feminist-based agencies dealing with domestic violence, child sex abuse and rape.
After the public had been duped into giving nearly $6M to the cause lesbian Jenny Rankine gloated in the July/August Broadsheet editorial : “The widely quoted guesstimates of the amount of family violence were feminist ones….another feminist achievement.”
At the time I documented the whole sordid campaign of deception, and one of the devious perpetrators of it was none other than lesbian Marilyn Waring, in this fraudulent and weird item on Auckland’s 1ZB news on 14th June of that year :-
“Marilyn Waring says there is evidence to support the claim [i.e. 1 in 4 girls etc.] including the leading world study on sexual abuse from Kinsey Institute, which says almost all men behave in a sexually offensive manner and those that don’t are non-conformists.”
So one can only speculate about the level of academic integrity to which Bradford’s studies will be subjected.
I recall a study coming out of Wiakato University which I found incredulous AND it’s ‘researcher’ was granted a Master’s Degree. Talk about an old girls club!. The ‘research’ concluded that 1 in 4 NZ girls had been sexually abused.
It got the recipient a nice plush job as lead counselor at a Hamilton Sexual Abuse Healing center too.
The ‘research’ methodology was an absolute joke, a waste of time and a blatant scam.
Here’s how it went –
* A questionnaire got placed by the ‘researcher’ in NZ biggest selling women’s magazine – The New Zealand Woman’s Weekly.
* Some 100 or so women respond to the questionnaire. Of the TOTAL of only 100 or so respondents about 25 say they’ve been sexually abused as a minor. Bear in mind the survey didn’t clearly define sexual abuse to begin with, the respondents weren’t met in person by the ‘researcher’ and so could in fact be only one person, and indeed not even a woman, but a man posting in 25 copies of the survey filled out as 25 different people.
I’m not saying that such a thing happened but pointing out the absolutely outrageous and very basic flaws in the methodology of the ‘research’ which in an act of corruption got granted a Master’s degree.
* The result was this SELF SELECTED (not randomly selected) group of women then got extrapolated outwards from one in 4 respondents from the TINY sample group and inflated to represent 1 in 4 of the WHOLE populace of NZ women.
Never mind that the sample size represented less than one hundred’s of 1% of the NZ adult female population!!!!
Yes, you read that correctly!!!
Let’s see that numerically folks – >0.01% !!!
I consider the author of such research and those ‘acdemics’ who ‘assessed’ it and awarded a Masters degree to the woman who wrote it to be nothing less than schiesters – fraudsters and thieves who have mislead the public for years causing untold needless anxiety and stolen many thousands from the public purse in the process.
No doubt Barbara, who is a wonderful source of information about feminist crimes committed in NZ over the last few decades can fill in the details for you. I’ll bet my right arm she can clearly show you how well connected these folks are to Marylyn Waring too.
Be very careful how you proceed there Julie.
You’re moving in on very unscrupulous people.
Merci de fournir ces informations Stephen. Incroyable!
There’s so much that can be said about this.
The dangers of qualitative research!
Insofar as the definitions of reliability and validity in quantitative research reveal two strands: Firstly, with regards to reliability, whether the result is replicable. Secondly, with regards to validity, whether the means of measurement are accurate and whether they are actually measuring what they are intended to measure. However, the concepts of reliability and validity are viewed differently by qualitative researchers who strongly consider these concepts defined in quantitative terms as inadequate.
In other words, these terms as defined in quantitative terms may not apply to the qualitative research paradigm. The question of replicability in the results does not concern them (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992), but precision (Winter, 2000), credibility, and transferability (Hoepf, 1997) provide the lenses of evaluating the findings of a qualitative research. In this context, the two research approaches or perspectives are essentially different paradigms (Kuhn, 1970).