The Feminist Paradox

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If the physical differences between men and women are so great as to be visible at 100 yards, then why would it be implausible that there are differences that are not visible, e.g. psychological?

Devil's Advocate:

I dare say that you could recognize the difference between a black man and a white man at at least 100 yards, but does that somehow reinforce the notion that there are invisible difference between the races?

But all you're noticing in that case is one difference - skin pigmentation - unlike what you're seeing in the case of gender. I am saying that if there are so many big, noticeable differences between the genders, one cannot reasonably claim that it is implausible that there are also differences below the surface.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It seems to me that in order for there to be a perspective that is identifiable as feminine, the feminine life experience must be so common among all of its members that it generates a shared and consistent way of viewing the world. I have no doubt that there are elements of living one's life as a female that are shared by all females, and to that extent that may very be a legitimate Feminine Perspective, the way there is a legitimate Double Amputee Perspective. However, such perspectives provide insight on only a limited number of topics for which the shared sense of "otherness" can result in a different view.

While a Double Amputee perspective on such subjects as public transportation, conformity within society and pain might very likely provide insight, the Double Amputee perspective on classical music, agricultural policy, or dealing with North Korea is unlikely to provide any valuable insight at all. To assume that Double Amputees share a common view on all possible subjects because of their shared condition would be grossly insulting to them.

So too the so-called Feminine Perspective.

The introduction of a distinction between brain wiring and shared experience goes only a very little way to resolve the paradox that is generated by Feminists who demand that women be given a voice on all topics simply because they are women.

I agree. I confess that I'm not terribly informed about what feminists are demanding, but assuming you are correct then I agree.

I could get into the whole argument about what Summers said and whether it's true, but I don't think that's what you really started this thread for, so I won't. I will say that when he said what he said, it would have been very easy to refute it with reasonable argument. To show that the differences between male and female in the sciences was a matter of career choice and biological paths in life more than a matter of women's brains being wired in such a way that they are unable to reach the same levels as men. It's possible that there were other women in the room who did this that we've not heard about, but it is very disappointing that at least one woman reacted in the absolutely most ridiculously stereotypically feminine way possible. I think that's what the author was getting at too.

Tsk tsk.
After reading some great posts from you Chrissee I was disappointed at your groin shot. I could easily turn your attention to women's math prowess in calculating bra sizes and 1/4 pounds but, what's the point.?
We know that females have an ability for math in grade school and they outperform boys in High School. The question is : why don't they keep up in college?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If the physical differences between men and women are so great as to be visible at 100 yards, then why would it be implausible that there are differences that are not visible, e.g. psychological?

Devil's Advocate:

I dare say that you could recognize the difference between a black man and a white man at at least 100 yards, but does that somehow reinforce the notion that there are invisible difference between the races?

But all you're noticing in that case is one difference - skin pigmentation - unlike what you're seeing in the case of gender. I am saying that if there are so many big, noticeable differences between the genders, one cannot reasonably claim that it is implausible that there are also differences below the surface.

There are "big, noticible" differences between black men and white men at 100 yards, that are probably more striking than those between white men and white women at the same distance.

We know that females have an ability for math in grade school and they outperform boys in High School. The question is : why don't they keep up in college?

I shouldn't think so. The only difference visible at a distance between blacks and whites that I can think of is skin pigment. Minor facial differences are certainly not visible at a distance. On the other hand, there are numerous large, visible differences between men and women, including even the way they move. Any argument that it is not even plausible that there could be inherent psychological differences between the genders is silly.

The idea that all behavioral differences between the sexes are environmental strikes me as very unlikely.

I used the example before of a disparity between blacks and whites in many sports such as football, basketball, numerous track and field events, etc. It is obvious to anybody that a higher percentage of black people are going to have superior ability in those activities than will other races.

Foxfyre wrote:

I used the example before of a disparity between blacks and whites in many sports such as football, basketball, numerous track and field events, etc. It is obvious to anybody that a higher percentage of black people are going to have superior ability in those activities than will other races.

I hate to post off topic, but this is interesting. Does this rule apply to black people from Africa, as well as black people from America? I suspect that if white people had been brought as slaves to Africa centuries ago, they would excell in sports too.