"I'm not sure how one defines "Healthy Masculinity" - but surely, it's a socially defined value. Let's take "healthy". It's one thing to define this as applied to statistical averages. But the word 'healthy' also exists in our language as implying a value judgement. Healthy = positive/good. So it becomes an issue, not only of scientific conclusions, but also of ideology."
It's a very common practice to use the word "healthy" to mean positive/good, so I'm sure the vast majority of people know exactly what is meant by the phrase "healthy masculinity."
"Historically, science has been wrong before about the differences between the sexes (see, for example, formerly respectable branches of science now re-classified as pseudoscience: phrenology etc). This should be enough to at least give you pause lest you become hubristic."
We're not talking about the science of old. Using your logic I shouldn't trust modern day surgeons because the medieval "surgeons" would make holes in people's heads to let the "bad spirits" out.
What scientists are finding now is irrefutable differences in the biology & chemistry of the male/female brain. We already know what hormones do to behavior & the fluxion of chemicals do to behavior.
To conclude there is NO behavioral difference based on proven biological difference is lofty at best. There is obviously some, but the degree is still absent from the findings. As time passes, we will learn more.
If you look back in history at the feminists, you will find a fair share of misandric hateful women preaching about the destruction of marriage & the evil nature of men. Historically there has been a lot of hypocritical views in feminism about a number of issues. (women are tough enough for the military, but too weak to hear swears at work or see a naked lady... You should never discriminate against women for any reason, but here is our list of reasons to discriminate against men, & one of my favorites which is someone's signature here, but I forget who... "I am woman, hear me roar, I am invincible, I am pregnant, brother, can you spare a dime?") So, historically feminists have given people like myself MANY reasons to think their views come from nothing more than self interest & anti-male bias.
...So I'm going to go with the scientists on this one.
"science is always aware that today's conclusions can become tomorrow's hypotheses. In short, the scientific method may well be the best method - but we must remember, it is not infallible."
When you look at what science proposes vs. what the feminists propose you see a very clear bias on the side of the feminists. It's much easier to preach equality when the people in question are in fact "equal" beings. If men are a different animal than women, the "equal" angle flies out the window. Feminists cling to the theories that support their vision of absolute equality. Equality under the law? Sure, everyone can agree on that. Equal as humans? Nope, men & women are different. Apples do not "equal" oranges.
Feminists stand to lose a HUGE part of their ideology if conclusive evidence arises that men & women are not "equal" beings. Feminists like Nancy Hopkins may have to admit that men may indeed have innate ability to handle spatial tasks that women do not have.
Some other feminists like to prattle on about all of the ways women are innately more nurturing & innately better at multitasking, but would have a Hopkins-esque episode of nausea if you suggested anything innately positive about males.
Science may not be infallible, but placed next to feminism... there's NO contest as to who deserves my trust.
I've been studying feminists for years now & I know this animal pretty well. Kate's mention of the "creationism vs science" struggle is actually very appropriate here. There are similarities between the staunch feminists & the devout Christians due to the fact that they both seem to reject science & any findings that conflict their world view.
I can understand their frustration. They base a large portion of their identity on beliefs that are in direct conflict with scientific findings. With each new scientific study comes another chisel chipping away at their "safe place."
It's very easy to see where the feminists would want to reject science. The problem is that they have to live in a state of denial to accomplish this.
I've heard feminists try to deny that men are generally better than women at sports. They have stories about the "girl they knew in high school that once hit a baseball further than a boy" & "their female friend that could run faster than the boys in her kindergarten class" & similar stories of girls beating boys in sports. Now do they show me professional women boxers winning the Heavyweight Champion of the World title? Do they show me marathon records of all of the female winners besting the male participants? Do they show me any examples of professional women athletes outperforming men? No, they don't ...because they can't.
They are in complete denial.
Kate, feminists have shown themselves to be pretty far off the beam when it comes to issues of logic & common sense. The refusal to take stock in scientific findings by feminists is "more of the same" as far as I'm concerned.
