Always willing to pontificate about everything under the sun to whosoever will listen, I have decided to pick on two of the posts that are currently on MND and to comment upon them.

1. The first is a piece entitled Sexually Active Teenagers are More Likely to be Depressed and Attempt Suicide by Jeremy Reynalds.

As one can gather from the title, this piece summarises some research findings that suggest that sexually active teenagers are more likely to be depressed and attempt suicide than are sexually inactive teenagers. However, both the article and, presumably, the research itself are extremely deceptive.

The article tries to lead the reader into the conclusion that sexual activity in teenagers is the very cause of depression and attempted suicide, but it makes no attempt whatsoever to explore the highly likely possibility that teenagers who engage in sex are the ones most likely to be seeking some form of solace, or some form of excitement, or some form of escape from the circumstances that they inhabit.

For example, teenagers from broken homes might well engage in sex at an earlier age than do those from happy homes, and they are also more likely to be depressed. But it does not follow that any depression that they experience is a direct result of the sex rather than the direct result of a broken home.

Similarly, it might well be the case that teenagers who indulge in sex are more predisposed to take risks - perhaps due to genetic factors - and that teenagers who are more predisposed to take risks are more likely to get depressed.

But the article has nothing to say about such possibilities - and there are many, many others. 

It is, therefore, little more than a piece of propaganda.

And it shows!

None of the above is to suggest that teenage sex does not lead, statistically speaking, to the consequences described, but I find it deeply irritating to see articles quoting 'scientific' research in support of their claims when the scope of the research being quoted does not actually warrant the claims being made on the basis of it.

And, even worse, the acceptance of such unwarranted claims could easily lead to very damaging consequences.

Here is an example.

Imagine that some research discovered that teenagers who watched TV after 10 o'clock were more likely to be depressed.

Could one simply conclude that the programmes after 10 o'clock were causing the depression?

Of course not.

It is far more likely that, statistically speaking, depressed teenagers simply gawp at the TV screen for much longer than do non-depressed teenagers - and so they are, therefore, far more likely to be watching after 10 o'clock.

But what if the researchers did erroneously conclude that the TV was, in fact, the cause of the depression? And so they said to the parents, "Do not let your children watch the TV after 10 o'clock because it will cause them to be depresssed," and the parents duly obliged.

What would then happen to the depressed teenagers who were now forbidden to watch the TV after 10 o'clock? What else might they do to alleviate their depression?

Well, of course, they might decide to kill themselves!

And the same might be true if teenagers were prevented from having sex!

This is why social 'science' can be very dangerous. Human beings and the circumstances that surround them are usually far too complex to allow one to make any grand claims about them on the basis of what is usually very simplistic research.

My piece entitled Smack those Bottoms? concerning the  smacking of children gives some indication of just how useless  is much of social science research, and, indeed, of just how dangerous to our society it can be when its truly severe limitations are not recognised - and are not even mentioned in articles.

2. The second piece is entitled A Way to Win by George Rolph.

It is a very good piece indeed, with some sound advice for men's activists. 

But I have a complaint

And it is a complaint that I have made against many men's activists in the past -  particularly when they have had the effrontery to suggest that I, myself, am far too belligerent!

George fails completely to take cognisance of the fact that much of what he advises has already been done for years by various men's activists. Writing polite letters and trying to cosy up to the politicians or to the media or to the judges does not work!

In the UK we have charities such as Families Need Fathers which have been doing this sort of thing for almost 30 years. Despite a membership of some 3000, Families Need Fathers has achieved very little and hardly anyone has even heard of them.

Needless to say, it is not a significant force!

It undoubtedly does help a lot of fathers with their own personal affairs but it is a complete failure when it comes to bringing about any change.

And if all men's activists were to operate in the same manner, the men's movement would get absolutely nowhere. Their issues and their movement would simply be dismissed out of hand - particularly by those with power, who are far too busy watching their backs and accommodating to those who do have the audacity to keep attacking them.

Far too many men do not realise that much of the world does not currently operate on the basis of what is right, and true, and best. It operates on the basis of strong demands and powerful forces that emanate from sources that have their own agendas.

Indeed, the feminist movement did not gain its astonishing power by following George's advice!

The feminists got their power by screaming, bullying, threatening and intimidating. They were hostile, aggressive, deceitful, dishonourable, utterly selfish, and quite prepared to carry out their threats.

And the idea that the men's movement could ever compete with such groups for the attention of the media, the politicians and even the public on the basis of quiet protest is just plain wrong.

It is the groups that are strong, determined, highly vocal and intimidating who tend to lead the way.

And the same goes for the group members themselves. 

Did Martin Luther King and Malcolm X appear to be quiet boys?

Did Hitler present himself as a tender soul?

Did Stalin?

Did Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan, Catherine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinem and all the other major feminists come across as very reasonable and gentle human beings?

No. They did not.

Did George Bush get a huge vote of popular support immediately after 9/11 by saying that he would have a quiet chat with Osama Bin Laden?

Did the Vietnam war protesters stop the war by saying a word here and a word there?

No. They did not.

A movement that does not shout and stamp its feet makes little headway.

Furthermore, not only is it the case that it is the persistently belligerent who usually end up calling the shots, but when it comes to attracting the attention of the public, the evidence shows quite clearly that one needs to generate heat!

For example, the tabloid press in the UK - which is very vitriolic - sells 5 times more newspapers than the relatively sedate - but vastly more informative - broadsheets.

The way to sell papers is to create a storm.

And the same is true for the men's movement.