This naive imposition of unscientific modes of thought on women
specifically leads to the state we have now. Assume a fundamental difference in
attitude: women feel, while men think.
To infer any difference in attitude between men and women is the closest thing to a sin in the system of secularist dogma. Marketers, of course, know different, which is why they have to pitch things differently to attract that much valued young male viewer--as opposed to the female audience, which apparently requires a different kind of programming.
This example occurs to me primarily because, as I sit here composing this, the female viewers in the room with me, in control of the remote, are watching Lifetime Television. Why are females attracted to Lifetime, while at least two of the males in the room would much rather be watching, say, mixed martial arts on Spike?
Could it be that women are attracted to the emotionalism so prevalant on Lifetime?
We could speculate on this, but we must not allow ourselves to think that it is because men and women are actually different. So if you ever wonder why you have to battle so often with someone of the opposite sex over the remote, go ahead and spin your theories--just don't resort to the obvious one.
10 comments:
Martin,
But PZ isn't talking about the remote, is he? There have been some outstanding female scientists-how do you account for them?
Wow! Martin spelled P. Z.'s name correctly.
KyCobb,
Why do I have to account for them? What did I say that would render them unaccountable?
Martin,
I assumed that you were actually criticizing Myers' comments, rather than merely going off on an unrelated tangent. So do you actually agree with Myers that women are being stereotyped as too emotional and not analytical enought to be good scientists?
Martin, are you insinuating that the different preferences you see in women and men (such as preferring Lifetime over ESPN) may reflect innate, inborn, even heritable differences in males and females?
KyCobb,
I criticized him for assuming gender equality. The issue of whether women do well in science and math is pretty settled really. The data suggests that, overall, they're fairly similar, but the standard deviation for men is greater than women. In other words, men are both better and worse than women, resulting in the fact that men are overrepresented in top science positions.
This was what got Larry Summers got fired from his president's post at Harvard--after a very emotional response from his critics.
But my problem with Myers was the assumption that men and women aren't different in important ways, not that women, on the whole, don't make good scientists.
Art,
Yes, as do preferences for beer and Doritos, NASCAR, and large, gas-guzzling trucks.
Art,
I also note you do a nice job of confounding innate difference and heritability. Heritability, of course, has nothing to do with it.
Martin, on this matter, you would seem to be in agreement with Myers.
Will wonders never cease?
Art,
Uh oh.
Post a Comment