|
PeonForHer -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/18/2009 10:32:30 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I thought I'd given that response: that those quoted authorities don't matter - because there are any number of authorities that one can quote. You don't even need to refute one bunch of authorities, you just need to put a different spin on the ones that have been cited and if that doesn't work, find different authorities.
I thought you'd have a better argument after equivocating, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
For the record, let's be clear here: you claimed no respectable scientist would speak directly to male inferiority. I disproved that by citing examples. Now you claim quoting authorities in the field is simply another tactic of spin. A fair enough claim to make in many arguments, but I think the leanings of the quotations speak for themselves.
For the record, let's be clear here: you claimed no respectable scientist would speak directly to male inferiority. I disproved that by citing examples.
Indeed you did. When academics want to flog books to the general public, they'll sometimes spin their research to make it "sexy". Steve Jones, for instance, loves doing that. I know that for certain because he's told me so. [;)] He knew he was stepping beyond his field of competence years ago, but he didn't care. Academics who do that are either at the end of their academic careers, broke, don't care anymore . . . Whatever - they do lose respect amongst their academic peers.
Now you claim quoting authorities in the field is simply another tactic of spin. A fair enough claim to make in many arguments, but I think the leanings of the quotations speak for themselves.
Yes, it is a tactic of spin. OK, let's play with this quote of yours, for the hell of it:
No one can deny the male is a derivative of the female template (why do men have nipples?). That is scientific fact.
Yes, men are hyper-tuned versions of women. Women are the basic model, men are the coupe versions.
No one can deny Women are more genetically complex than men (XX vs. Xy chromosomes).
Employ the old minimalist argument - simplicity is better. Complexity is a sign of something badly designed.
No one can deny men are more prone to a number of diseases . .
An iron bar can't be damaged easily, a finely-crafted sword can.
., and Women usually outlive men by an average of seven years.
The flame that burns brightest, burns quickest.
No one can deny Women bear the most vital sexual organs.
Sorry - but's too obviously skewed even to be worth bothering with, frankly!
No one can deny the main hub for emotion and memory formation is usually larger in a woman's brain.
Poor women! No wonder they find emotion so difficult to suppress and aren't, therefore, suited to the top jobs in society. Jean Jacques Rousseau, a founder of modern liberalism and philosopher of the French Revolution, was insistent on power for men - but not for women. He thought that they were too 'naturally' loyal to their families to be considered reliable for thinking about civic matters. To do that, he thought, you needed to be emotionless and cool. Women weren't capable of that, he believed. (And he, by the way, was into female domination, as has recently been discovered.)
No one can deny Women have a higher pain tolerance than men.
Oh dear, poor women! That means that they feel pain less. Nature designed pain for a purpose, presumably - and women feel less of it? Well, they must be inferior. They have less of a certain quantity bestowed on animals for the sake of their survival - ergo, they just must be inferior.
No one can deny Women generally have better sensory ability than men.
Women are too sensitive for the top jobs and to run countries; indeed, to run families.
No one can deny that on average, Women are healthier than men of their own age.
Evidence that women have easier lives, of course. They don't live as dangerously. To corroborate, men have more accidents than women, too. Men live on the fast track of life. This is why men should do the glamorous stuff and women should sit at home knitting.
You see where I'm going with this? It's all bollocks, of course. It's just that I've chosen a bunch of your facts to spin a certain way just for the fun of it, whereas you seem to take your version of spin as the only possible interpretation - without, that is, even recognising that it's spin at all.
It's dangerously out-of-date to think in terms of 'objective facts' that support one sort of social prescription or another. It has been since even before Hitler tried to do it. Nowadays, the consequences of doing that could be unimaginably destructive - take, for example, the science of climatology and what has been done with the evidence on climate change.
We need to wrest ourselves, finally, out of that defunct era of high modernism and the supposed purity and hardness of biological and physical science - it was a buggered up attitude decades ago, never mind now.
|
|
|
|
