« Living Outback (new radio series on PBA FM and live streaming) | Main | 21st century man: lost and anachronistic? (SMH article) »

Nordic Countries defund Gender Ideology


A devastating blow for “Gender Theory”: 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 in which the hopelessly unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed.

The producer of the series is Harald Eia (pictured), a Norwegian comedian, who had gained some popularity in Norway with his satirical TV shows. Besides being a comedian, Mr. Eia also holds a degree in social sciences. He was puzzled by the fact that, despite all efforts by politicians and social engeneers to remove “gender stereotypes”, girls continued to opt for typically “female” professions (such as nurses, hairdressers, etc.) whereas boys continued being attracted by “male” careers (such as that of technicians, construction workers, etc.). Indeed, rather than being reversed by “gender equality” policies, the trend became more accentuated.

In his documentary, Mr. Eia just went, in the company of a camera team, and asked some innocent questions to the leading researchers and scientists of the NIKK. Then he took the replies and brought them to leading scientists in other parts of the world, notably in the UK and the US, asking them to comment on the findings of their Norwegian peers. As was to be expected, the results of the Norwegian bogus science provoked amusement and incredulity among the international scientific community – especially because it was based on mere theory, never supported by any empirical research. Mr. Eia filmed those reactions, went back to Oslo, and showed them to the NIKK researchers. It turned out that, when confronted with empiric science, the “Gender Researchers” were speechless, and completely unable to defend their theories against the reality check.

What is more, the bogus was exposed to ridicule in front of the entire TV audience, and people began to ask why it was necessary to fund with 56 million Euro of taxpayers’ money some ideology-driven “research” that had no scientific credentials at all.

As it turned out, a few innocent questions, asked by a comedian, were sufficient to bring down the pompous edifice of “Gender Theory”. It is hoped that the lesson will be heard in other countries, or in the EU and the UN, where this ideology still holds sway in the corridors of power…

To wacth Mr. Eia’s documentary in full length, visit this site and, when asked to enter a password, type “hjernevask” (the Norwegian word for “brainwash”, which was aptly chosen as title for the documentary). Non-Norwegians don’t need to worry – there are English subtitles.

Part 1 – ”The Gender Equality Paradox
Part 2 – ”The Parental Effect
Part 3 – ”Gay/straight
Part 4 – ”Violence
Part 5 – ”Sex
Part 6 – ”Race
Part 7 – ”Nature or Nurture

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (15)

Must say, in the midst of all the chivalry and equality this was an epic documentary and article to post.


March 12, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterTim

I saw it on youtube a few months ago. It is very good. There was one of the sociologists, that when shown the opinion of UK and US scientists said something like "science has no place in the field of social studies". I was shocked by such stupidity from a person with a phd. Science is the basis of everything.

March 12, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterIrving

Very happy to hear this, it is time of reckoning for the feminists movement which is based on leis and very narrow view. This deluded people (in many cases academia- primarily from woman studies) needs to be re-adjusted.

March 12, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterPeterPan

I am a sociology student and i am appalled by the attitude of those working in the social sciences. I for one plan to be working with the biological sciences when trying to gain insight.

March 12, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterAlistair

HIghly recommended documentary series, entertaining and eminently watchable even with subs ( the interviews with UK and british authorities are in english)

March 12, 2013 | Unregistered Commentergreg canning

It is time to put an end to feminism's ideological dictatorship. Feminism’s immunity to official critique has rendered it self-indulgent and self-righteous. It is time to replace female-ism with equalism.

Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics.

March 13, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterTim Goldich

The arrogance of this useless so called scientist's ??? It is so appalling !!! They should be fired immediately . Science should not be politicise. Never ! Please come to Canada . Here is even worse . Please come to University of Toronto and make a documentary . Its so much politics and so little actual science . Politically corecness is doing a lot damage to science . A lot !! No wonder there is no major advances in medicine .
Please come to Toronto and help !!

March 13, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterElena

The sex video can be easily debunked by any anthropologist. As a matter of fact, it is believed that the patriarchy came into power with the rise of agricultural societies in the neolithic and that when mankind first made the step towards civilization, the sexuality of women was the first thing that had to be controlled because the fidelity of women was necessary to ensure social stability in societies where power was passed via patrilineal descent.

On the contrary, in the paleolithic, it is believed that women had all the power and were sexually uninhibited. The penis size of primates is a direct evolutionary reflection of female promiscuity as the male with the largest penis always fathers the offspring when multiple males ejaculate in the same female during a short period of time. In species where females mate exclusively with one male such as the gorilla, penis size is tiny, only 1" erect on average. However, the more promiscuous bonobos have 3" erections on average, while men have at least 5-6" erections on average.

There were remnants of matriarchal societies that survived into the early modern period and were studied by anthropologists such as the Trobriand Islanders. These people were dominated by women, social status depended on who your mother was, and they were noted for wild uninhibited promiscuity with adults having sex with both women and men, and even children. They had much in common with bonobos to a shocking degree. Such matriarchal societies may have been typical of the human experience throughout all of prehistory until the development of agriculture in the neolithic and the advent of the patriarchy which lead to control of sexuality and the rise of civilization.

The reason women in these kinds of societies were so uninhibited and had little care for who fathered their children is that in matriarchal societies men never left the family they were born into. In fact, it was brothers and uncles who played the role of a father, caring for and providing for the offspring of their female relatives, rather than their own children. In fact, in such societies, men were not even considered to be related to their own children. The concept of fatherhood was alien to these societies, as children come from women. Given that societies such as these were most likely the norm and not the patriarchal societies that have only been around for last 10,000 or so years out of the millions of years of human evolution, it is not logical to believe that women are biologically less predisposed to promiscuity. Women are essentially no different than female bonobos when it comes down to it.

March 14, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterskeptic

I've heard that the interviews with the Norwegian researchers in this have been heavily edited to make them look more extreme and idiotic than they actually are.
Don't believe everything you see on TV, especially if it comes from a comedian.

March 15, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterKSOS

Skeptic, I am very skeptical of your citationless lesson on pre-agricultural female promiscuity. It makes absolutely no sense from a biological standpoint.

From a biological standpoint, reproduction is a very low effort act for a man, and a very high effort act for a female. A male is able to impregnate a woman in minutes, biologically his role ends here. A female must then gestate for 9 months, then her body must provide milk for months afterward. A male can impregnate many women in a short period of time. Whereas a woman can only be impregnated once at a time.

From a gene standpoint, it behooves a male to attempt to impregnate as many women as he can. this ensures that at least some of his genes survive in his living offspring. This is very different for a female, and it is why females have such an influence on sexual selection. It behooves the female to not be promiscuous, it behooves the female to only allow the male of high quality genetic makeup to impregnate her. If she is impregnated with the genes of a bad stock, and her offspring do not survive, this constitutes a massive waste of energy on the part of the female.

I am not saying outright that the analysis you wrote is incorrect, but it seems to go against some basic laws inherent in mammalian sexual dimorphism, I look forward to some links on the subject.

March 17, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterLiam

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>