}

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Right on cue

Yesterday I blogged about the government’s quasi-eugenics plans to offer “voluntary” long-term contraceptives to women on a benefit and their teenage daughters. I mentioned that our far-right “Christian” lobby was taking a position both ways, but, nevertheless, the debate here was quite different from in the USA. Naturally, that couldn’t last.

Today New Zealand’s most prominent fundamentalist Christian politician rubbished the plans because only sluts use contraception. That wasn’t quite how he put it, of course, but it was his clear meaning. Speaking to Radio New Zealand, Colin Craig, the leader of the rightwing “Christian” Conservative Party said:
"Why should, say, a 70-year-old who's had one partner all their life be paying for a young woman to sleep around? We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all."
He apparently thinks that no monogamous woman would ever use contraception when, in fact, most women do, statistically speaking. And his assertion that New Zealand’s young women are the world’s “most promiscuous”? Utter nonsense.

Craig said “international research” had shown our women were promiscuous and living what he called a “destructive lifestyle”. That “research” was actually a 2006 survey conducted by a manufacturer of condoms to help them better market their products. The manufacturer says, “we can confirm this survey is reliable and credible.” And so, they disclose their margin of error, their confidence level and so on, right? Well, no. Instead, they declare it’s credible because:
“We have used a sample size of 1,000 for the majority of countries surveyed which is the recommended sample size required for social policy and PR activity.”
So, they say their survey is accurate because they had a thousand people and that’s the right number of participants. Okay, then. The surveys were conducted online in all but one country and taken among people invited by email, mainly from a marketing research panel—not a truly random sample at all, in other words.

To sum it up: We have a non-representative sample, no data on whether there’s even a shred of scientific method involved, all of which makes the entire thing suspect, but Craig, who John Key thinks could be a coalition partner for National after the 2014 elections, thinks a dubious marketing survey qualifies as “international research” on which he’s happy to blast ordinary New Zealand women for being sluts:
"We are faced with a reality that the constant changing of partners is a decision young women are making. It's a destructive decision on a lot of levels. Health is one of those, and it is a big cost to us."
Either Colin Craig is an idiot, or he’s allowing his personal religious prejudices to get in the way of reason and intellect. Actually, it’s entirely possible that both are true—the jury’s still out on that.

Prime Minister John Key may have begun to see what a nutter Craig is. He stated that there’s no credible evidence to back up Craig’s slurs, but still didn’t rule out working with him in the future: "We work with lots of partners and we don't always agree with everything they say and they don't always agree with us. It doesn't mean that we can't work constructively," he said.

However, for the first time Key said he might consider working with New Zealand First and Winston Peters after the next election, even though in the past he’d flatly ruled Peters out. With the Act “Party” all but sure to die when John Banks leaves Parliament, Key is becoming desperate to find coalition partners—one could even say he’s being promiscuous, politically speaking.

I think we should be glad Craig has no censor connected to his mouth. By saying what he really thinks, he’s helped ordinary, mainstream Kiwis see how loopy he is.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry dude, but you are absolutely wrong. 1000 respondents is the minimum point at which results can be interpreted as having statistical significance. There is actually no such thing as a random sample, as whatever method is used will introduce some form of bias - hence the requirement for a larger the sample size, to iron out any anomalies accidently introduced. The survey is statistically sound, as are the results. Just because you don't like the truth, doesn't stop it from being the truth. How about dealing with the issue instead of ignoring it and trying to shoot the messenger?

Arthur Schenck said...

Um, no, "dude" (or is it "dudette"?), the survey is not "statistically sound" just because it has 1,000 people. The number itself is irrelevant when we don't know what the real methods used were, and when we don't have any other corroborating data.

The newsmedia is reporting that this was a self-selected sample which means that it is highly probable that the sample isn't even close to being representative. We must assume it is an invalid, meaningless survey because they released zero information about the survey, including margin of error, confidence level, etc. (and I said that in my post, as of course you know). You may be happy with PR blather about surveys being legitimate, and for selling condoms—and maybe for that purpose this is. But I demand more from people who set public policy (or want to), and without more information the inescapable conclusion is that this survey is bullshit PR nonsense.

By the way "dude", you may want to check your clichés before using them to defend your argument: Colin Craig was the messenger, not the marketing survey, which he merely use to bolster his loony rightwing religious/political position. While I obviously utterly dismiss the validity of the survey and dispute it has any "truth" at all, that clearly wasn't the point of this post. It was necessary to explain why the poll appears to be useless in order to show why Colin Craig is such an idiot for referring to it.

Now, if you have some evidence to prove the legitimacy of the marketing survey, by all means post the links in the comments. Or, perhaps you know of some independent, legitimate research that reached the same conclusion. If not, we'll all continue to dismiss the marketing survey's legitimacy and ridicule Colin Craig for using it to support his views on public policy.

d said...

I am seriously fucking SICK of this weird war on women, as if we are the only ones having sex. Hello! Two people need to have sex to have babies! What the fuck? A woman can only have one baby at a time (excluding multiple births), but how many women can a man "knock up" in the course of 9 months?!

I did actually hear on National Public Radio yesterday someone on the Right say that "women in parts of the country use children as a 'career choice'". *sigh*