Brainwash: The documentary series that got Scandinavia to axe its Gender Studies institution - General

This is the most mind blowing documentary ever made by a Norwegian comedian. Harald Eia interviews a vast array of scientists, political activists and abuse survivors in order to get to the bottom of the most pressing questions of our generation. Is gender and sexuality socially constructed? Is violence an innate part of human nature? Are men and women driven towards different fields of employment? Are some races better at certain things than others? How much is it of what we are that is determined by genetics and how much is decided by how we are raised? It's been suggested that the release of this documentary in Norway by the famous comedian (famous in Norway, that is) Harald Eia is what led the Nordic Council of Ministers to shut down the Nordic Gender Institute. The series received the Fritt Ord Honorary Award "for, through the programme Brainwash, having precipitated one of the most heated debates on research in recent times." If you don't have the time to watch the whole series, just watch the first video and the last one to get the jist of it. Part 1: The Gender Equality Paradox [video=vimeo;19707588]https://vimeo.com/19707588[/video] Part 2: The Parental Effect [video=vimeo;19893826]https://vimeo.com/19893826[/video] Part 3: Gay/Straight [video=vimeo;19869748]https://vimeo.com/19869748[/video] Part 4: Violence [video=vimeo;19921232]https://vimeo.com/19921232[/video] Part 5: Sex (As in intercourse, not biological sex) [video=vimeo;19921928]https://vimeo.com/19921928[/video] There's a bit of the video that was cut off at the end, here's the missing part: [quote]Anne Campbell: It seems to me quite extraordinary that most social scientists would accept that evolution has caused us to have the kind of body's that we have, to have two lungs, one heart, two arms, they're quite happy about that. As soon as you get to the neck, as soon as you get to the brain, they think that for some reason, evolution would have had no affect on the brain, yet it is the single most costly organ that we posses in the terms of the calories we use to run it. That brain evolved for a reason, and it evolved because it gave us an advantage. Credits roll..[/quote] Part 6: Race password: hjernevask [video=vimeo;19922972]https://vimeo.com/19922972[/video] Cut off bit at the end: [quote] Trond Thorbjørnsen: If we are to summarize anti-racism with a slogan, it might be "Humans are individuals, no matter the skin-color" *New scene*, Charles Murray: Viva le de France! I mean, We have human-beings and all their richness , who are attractive to us for a whole variety of different reasons. How boring it would be if we were all the same. Credits roll... [/quote] Part 7: Nature or nurture? [video=vimeo;19889788]https://vimeo.com/19889788[/video] Cut off bit at the end: [QUOTE]Harald: I'm almost disappointed when I meet Norwegian scientists. I expected they would be more open and curious. And there is *laughs* no traces of it. Knut Olav Åmås: Well then you had met too few before you got that expectation. Our university's and colleges environments are supposedly rationallity's high-ground, but in practice just as irrational, and also have power struggles like other envoirments. And their rationality is not better developed. Harald: I think I've been a little naive.... Knut Olav Åmås: Yeah. maybe you have been..... Credit rolls....[/QUOTE]

I watched this a long time ago. Isn't this the series where, essentially, one side of the argument provides reasoned data supporting the ideas that gender identity and sexuality are born traits, and the other side just gets repeatedly upset?

[QUOTE=bitches;48289867]I watched this a long time ago. Isn't this the series where, essentially, one side of the argument provides reasoned data supporting the ideas that gender identity and sexuality are born traits, and the other side just gets repeatedly upset?[/QUOTE] Pretty much. He records each of the people he interviews and shows them videos he recorded of the opposing side, the biologists come up with reasonable arguments and rebutte any points brought up against them while the sociologists just stammer and awkwardly accuse the scientists of being Nazis.

Why would they call the biologists Nazis for providing proofs of genetic identity that would most directly be used in [I]promotion[/I] of LGBT people? Why would an institute supposedly existing to promote LGBT people fear this documentary and close to public shaming, when both sides have the same goal? It sounds as though the sociologist institute is the real-life version of the tumblr strawman; belligerent and unwilling to develop a stronger more intelligent and foresighted argument, in the assumption that their ideas are being attacked

[QUOTE=bitches;48289903]Why would they call the biologists Nazis for providing proofs of genetic identity that would most directly be used in [I]promotion[/I] of LGBT people? Why would an institute supposedly existing to promote LGBT people fear this documentary and close to public shaming, when both sides have the same goal? It sounds as though the sociologist institute is the real-life version of the tumblr strawman; belligerent and unwilling to develop a stronger more intelligent and foresighted argument, in the assumption that their ideas are being attacked[/QUOTE] They do it for political and faith-based reasons. They want to believe that people are 'fixable' and that the world/humanity is 'remouldable' so that their beliefs of a potential utopian society will be possible. This is addressed in Part 4 with the two old women who came up with the wishy-washy theory that we used to be an idyllic and peaceful hunter-gatherer society; they admit that they believe in that theory because they want to believe its possible to live in that world, not just because of (non-existent) scientific data. They have no idea what effects their proposed final solution for violence, greed and revenge will actually have on the world, they just want it to be true. It's like a religion, but instead of a god they worship they have an idea of what they want the world to be. They won't accept any other possibility. There's also another possibility. Many of these sociologists and gender studies professors have been doing what they do for a very long time. As long as people believe what they say, they're revered and respected and paid good money to espouse their beliefs. The answer could be so cynical that it could simply be that they refuse to believe anything that goes against their teachings because they must, because if they were to admit their theories were not so all-consuming as they claim it to be they wouldn't just be out of a job, they'd lose all their respect, all their prestige, all the adulation of their own intelligence and ego. They might even be forced to admit that they know nothing at all about what they preach.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48289927]They do it for political and faith-based reasons. They want to believe that people are 'fixable' and that the world/humanity is 'remouldable' so that their beliefs of a potential utopian society will be possible. This is addressed in Part 4 with the two old women who came up with the wishy-washy theory that we used to be an idyllic and peaceful hunter-gatherer society; they admit that they believe in that theory because they want to believe its possible to live in that world, not just because of (non-existent) scientific data. They have no idea what effects their proposed final solution for violence, greed and revenge will actually have on the world, they just want it to be true. It's like a religion, but instead of a god they worship they have an idea of what they want the world to be. They won't accept any other possibility.[/QUOTE] scary

[QUOTE=Zyler;48289927]They do it for political and faith-based reasons. They want to believe that people are 'fixable' and that the world/humanity is 'remouldable' so that their beliefs of a potential utopian society will be possible. This is addressed in Part 4 with the two old women who came up with the wishy-washy theory that we used to be an idyllic and peaceful hunter-gatherer society; they admit that they believe in that theory because they want to believe its possible to live in that world, not just because of (non-existent) scientific data. They have no idea what effects their proposed final solution for violence, greed and revenge will actually have on the world, they just want it to be true. It's like a religion, but instead of a god they worship they have an idea of what they want the world to be. They won't accept any other possibility. There's also another possibility. Many of these sociologists and gender studies professors have been doing what they do for a very long time. As long as people believe what they say, they're revered and respected and paid good money to espouse their beliefs. The answer could be so cynical that it could simply be that they refuse to believe anything that goes against their teachings because they must, because if they were to admit their theories were not so all-consuming as they claim it to be they wouldn't just be out of a job, they'd lose all their respect, all their prestige, all the adulation of their own intelligence and ego. They might even be forced to admit that they know nothing at all about what they preach.[/QUOTE] Even if you believe certain traits are fixed by nature, what's to stop us from evolving away from those traits and promoting different ones if we choose to?

[QUOTE=amorax;48289983]Even if you believe certain traits are fixed by nature, what's to stop us from evolving away from those traits and promoting different ones if we choose to?[/QUOTE] think for a moment about what you've just typed, most specifically regarding homosexuality

[QUOTE=Zyler;48289877]Pretty much. He records each of the people he interviews and shows them videos he recorded of the opposing side, the biologists come up with reasonable arguments and rebutte any points brought up against them while the sociologists just stammer and awkwardly accuse the scientists of being Nazis.[/QUOTE] So he sets up Biologist against Scientologists and expects a reasonable debate?

or to actually answer your question; respecting freedom of choice and unhindered enjoyment of life over the possibility of others being born with what are objectively speaking not harmful (speaking specifically of sexuality) [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=proch;48289996]So he sets up Biologist against Scientologists and expects a reasonable debate?[/QUOTE] my merge [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=proch;48289996]So he sets up Biologist against Scientologists and expects a reasonable debate?[/QUOTE] probably didn't expect any better; he set out to hilight the absurdity of nonscientific argument

[QUOTE=bitches;48289867]I watched this a long time ago. Isn't this the series where, essentially, one side of the argument provides reasoned data supporting the ideas that gender identity and sexuality are born traits, and the other side just gets repeatedly upset?[/QUOTE] But it's not like that in the first part that I've just watched, there was credible data and experiments shown by the sociology researchers.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290011]But it's not like that in the first part that I've just watched, there was credible data and experiments shown by the sociology researchers.[/QUOTE] then read the rest of the thread and take it as reason to watch the whole series before arguing

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290011]But it's not like that in the first part that I've just watched, there was credible data and experiments shown by the sociology researchers.[/QUOTE] Watch the whole series, or at least the first episode and the last episode.

[QUOTE=bitches;48290018]then read the rest of the thread and take it as reason to watch the whole series before arguing[/QUOTE] But your claim is already wrong for the first part.

[QUOTE=bitches;48289994]think for a moment about what you've just typed, most specifically regarding homosexuality[/QUOTE] Homosexuals can still reproduce. As a matter of fact, I believe purely homosexual people are actually in the minority, and even if they weren't, thanks to the wonders of science that's not a problem due to things like in-vitro fertilisation and genetic engineering. Just because you think we've evolved certain traits doesn't mean they're some kind of universal law everyone has to follow.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290030]But your claim is already wrong for the first part.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean, but we were discussing the whole documentary series in context, not just the first part. You need to see the whole thing to get the perspective, or at least the first part and the last part to get the jist of it. [editline]25th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=amorax;48289983]Even if you believe certain traits are fixed by nature, what's to stop us from evolving away from those traits and promoting different ones if we choose to?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=amorax;48290033]Homosexuals can still reproduce. As a matter of fact, I believe purely homosexual people are actually in the minority, and even if they weren't, thanks to the wonders of science that's not a problem due to things like in-vitro fertilisation and genetic engineering. Just because you think we've evolved certain traits doesn't mean they're some kind of universal law everyone has to follow.[/QUOTE] That's not specifically the point. Do you believe that sexuality is socially constructed? By that I mean, do you believe that people choose to be gay/are made gay by outside forces or are they born gay? If people are born gay, do you believe that their sexuality can be changed? If not, what does it say to those people that we want to move away from their condition? What do we do to those people to erase them from the gene pool?

I'm sorry but when you claim that one side provides data and the other doesn't and there is numerous cases where both provide data (even if only in the first part) your claim is obviously wrong.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290093]I'm sorry but when you claim that one side provides data and the other doesn't and there is numerous cases where both provide data your claim is obviously wrong.[/QUOTE] I can't tell you anything but to watch the whole thing, or at least the first part and the last part (where the claims of the sociologists are disproven). You're not bringing up any examples and you haven't watched enough of the documentary to have an opinion on the matter.

Thanks for posting this, as a student studying psychology this is really interesting.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48290093]I'm sorry but when you claim that one side provides data and the other doesn't and there is numerous cases where both provide data (even if only in the first part) your claim is obviously wrong.[/QUOTE] I just watched the first part, and I don't recall the sociologist providing any data at all. Could you reiterate what I missed, or at least, write the time (in the video) at which they provide the data? Oh, and this is an interesting watch, especially for me since I am studying to become a teacher and this might be useful in that context. I will watch the rest when I have the time.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48290068]That's not specifically the point. Do you believe that sexuality is socially constructed? By that I mean, do you believe that people choose to be gay/are made gay by outside forces or are they born gay? If people are born gay, do you believe that their sexuality can be changed? If not, what does it say to those people that we want to move away from their condition? What do we do to those people?[/QUOTE] I wasn't saying we ought to breed homosexuality out of people, just that we could if we wanted to, same as we could breed heterosexuality out of people. As for my beliefs regarding people's sexuality, I believe all creatures, including humans, are born pansexual and we are then conditioned into adopting various sexual preferences by our culture. If you don't believe me, consider animals, who will have sex with anything that moves. I even used to have a male pet dog who would try to hump my younger brother's friends when they got down on all fours and he would happily hump female dogs at a moment's notice as well. [URL]http://www.thefrisky.com/photos/10-animals-with-bisexual-tendencies/bisexual-animals-griffon-vulture-jpg/[/URL]

[QUOTE=amorax;48290135]I wasn't saying we ought to breed homosexuality out of people, just that we could if we wanted to, same as we could breed heterosexuality out of people. As for my beliefs regarding people's sexuality, I believe all creatures, including humans, are born pansexual and we are then conditioned into adopting various sexual preferences by our culture. If you don't believe me, consider animals, who will have sex with anything that moves. I even used to have a male pet dog who would try to hump my younger brother's friends when they got down on all fours and he would happily hump female dogs at a moment's notice as well. [URL]http://www.thefrisky.com/photos/10-animals-with-bisexual-tendencies/bisexual-animals-griffon-vulture-jpg/[/URL][/QUOTE] While I'm sure your subjective viewpoint without any scientific study as a basis is enough to convince you of your hypothesis, I'm not sure if I find your personal anecdote convincing enough as evidence. If only there was some kind of documented foray into this kind of thing that considered the latest scientific research and interviewed various experts of different areas of biology, psychology and social engineering to answer this question for us. Oh wait, what's that? A seven-part documentary series that answered said question at the top of the page? Who would have guessed?

[QUOTE=Zyler;48290154]While I'm sure your subjective viewpoint without any scientific study as a basis is enough to convince you of your hypothesis, I'm not sure if I find your personal anecdote convincing enough as evidence. If only there was some kind of documented foray into this kind of thing that considered the latest scientific research and interviewed various experts of different areas of biology, psychology and social engineering to answer this question for us. Oh wait, what's that? A seven-part documentary series that answered said question at the top of the page? Who would have guessed?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.thefrisky.com/photos/10-a...n-vulture-jpg/[/url] This isn't an anecdote, and an appeal to authority isn't an argument. Homosexuality and bisexuality are well documented in animals and even humans. See the links below for details. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality[/url]

[QUOTE=amorax;48290193][url]http://www.thefrisky.com/photos/10-a...n-vulture-jpg/[/url] This isn't an anecdote, and an appeal to authority isn't an argument. Homosexuality and bisexuality are well documented in animals and even humans. See the links below for details. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality[/url][/QUOTE] Homosexuality and bisexuality do indeed exist in animals, same as they do in people. However, you're confusing a dog in heat with an entirely new dynamic of biological behavior. [quote]According to a 2001 Human Rights Watch report "No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons", [b]sexual slavery is frequently posed as a consensual sexual relationship inside prisons. Rape victims are often intimidated into feigning consent to sexual activity, to the point of becoming "slaves" and the figurative property of their rapists.[/b] HRW also stated that many studies report the prevalence of rape perpetrated by dark-skinned prisoners against light-skinned prisoners.[4] Prospective slaveholders will sometimes use intimidating innuendo, as opposed to overt threats of violence, which the prospective slave unwillingly accepts, thereby disguising the coercive nature of the sexual activity from even the enslaver. Slaves might not even see themselves as being coerced, if the enslavement is negotiated as repayment for a debt. Also, some consider themselves transformed into a homosexual.[5] The HRW report contains an account in which an inmate is coerced in this way.[6] It is argued that in prison, consent is inherently illusory. In many cases among men, [b]the partner who penetrates another sexually is not regarded as homosexual among fellow inmates, and the receptive partner (who may or may not be consenting) is called a "woman", a "bitch", a "punk", or a "prag", and is regarded as homosexual, even when he is not.[/b][/quote] Ah yes, this sounds very plausible as evidence that people can be turned gay by being raped (and not a way for criminals to feel power over their victims). I suppose you believe that the same thing works the other way around, gay men and women can be turned straight through non-consensual intercourse with the opposite sex.

[QUOTE=amorax;48290135]I wasn't saying we ought to breed homosexuality out of people, just that we could if we wanted to, same as we could breed heterosexuality out of people. As for my beliefs regarding people's sexuality, I believe all creatures, including humans, are born pansexual and we are then conditioned into adopting various sexual preferences by our culture. If you don't believe me, consider animals, who will have sex with anything that moves. I even used to have a male pet dog who would try to hump my younger brother's friends when they got down on all fours and he would happily hump female dogs at a moment's notice as well. [URL]http://www.thefrisky.com/photos/10-animals-with-bisexual-tendencies/bisexual-animals-griffon-vulture-jpg/[/URL][/QUOTE] Cool. You know there can be homosexuals in super religious sodomy-is-a-sin families right? How'd that work?

[QUOTE=Zyler;48290198]an entirely new dynamic of biological behavior.[/QUOTE] What does this even mean? Also, you don't need to focus on the anecdote so much. I did provide those links for a reason you know. [QUOTE]Ah yes, this sounds very plausible as evidence that people can be turned gay by being raped. I suppose you believe that the same thing works the other way around, gay men and women can be turned straight through non-consensual sex.[/QUOTE] I didn't say people could be turned gay by being raped (seriously, where did you get that from?). I did point out that formerly straight people engaged in consensual homosexual behaviour and occasionally targeted other men for sexual assault while in prison.

[QUOTE=amorax;48290193][url]http://www.thefrisky.com/photos/10-a...n-vulture-jpg/[/url] This isn't an anecdote, and an appeal to authority isn't an argument. Homosexuality and bisexuality are well documented in animals and even humans. See the links below for details. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality[/url][/QUOTE] First link (which you copied wrong): [B]absolutely the definition of anecdotal; thats a fucking blog site, not a scientific paper[/B] second link: denies your own suggestions by bringing statistical layout of [I]proportions[/I] of mammals having non-heterosexual sexualities more than changing sexualities, except in cases of [B]biological manipulation[/B] third link: does not substantiate your claim; you can't throw around random links without being more specific and citing particular quotes furthermore, there was no appeal to authority, but rather citing a very long discussion [B]that compares evidence with lack of evidence[/B]

[QUOTE=amorax;48290210]What does this even mean? Also, you don't need to focus on the anecdote so much. I did provide those links for a reason you know.[/QUOTE] Your links don't actually prove anything and your anecdote was ridiculous, that's why I'm laughing at it. As for the "new biological behaviour", I mean that you're suggesting an entirely new way to which sexual behaviours work. That all animals are somehow are now supposed to have sex with everything that moves and eventually find the right thing to fuck, despite this behavior never being documented in any situation but your dog apparently. Again, you're confusing an animal in heat with the biological process of sexual attraction. I don't see how animals being able to be homo- bi- or a-sexual just like humans has anything to do with this situation. None of those things means "fuck everything that moves". Not unless you're one of those stereotypical Texan pastors anyway.

what makes you so sure that your own lack of research is valid? why do you think you can tell people what sexualities they have, and make the claim that they are delusional? have you never heard of reparative therapy?

[QUOTE=amorax;48290210]being raped (seriously, where did you get that from?). I did point out that formerly straight people engaged in consensual homosexual behaviour and occasionally targeted other men for sexual assault while in prison.[/QUOTE] Literally just the third link you posted. Do you even read these things? [quote]According to a 2001 Human Rights Watch report "No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons", [b]sexual slavery is frequently posed as a consensual sexual relationship inside prisons. Rape victims are often intimidated into feigning consent to sexual activity, to the point of becoming "slaves" and the figurative property of their rapists.[/b][/quote] Its used as a way of gaining power over other prisoners, they don't actually turn gay. They rape people as a way of feeling power over them and controlling them to make them do whatever they want.