"Bluedye, this is a nice attempt at reframing the original argument we were having last week. Anyone who wants to can access that thread - titled Healthy Masculinity - and see for themselves my original argument which was never 'feminism is better than science' or any such nonsense."
Well I said the "feminist method", as it related to the "scientific method" for gender research, but if you'd like to broaden that to all of science vs all of feminism for a little of you own "reframing", then go right ahead.
"However, for the benefit of those who are too busy to follow back to the source, I will reiterate it here: my original argument was not, actually with Bluedye per se, but with some other members of this forum who had declared sex differences irrefutably proved by hard science and furthermore, found that said sex differences disproved feminism's attempt to 'argue that there were no sex differences.'"
Well if you are responding to this comment by me:
"What scientists are finding now is irrefutable differences in the biology & chemistry of the male/female brain."
...then it's not at all a person that had "declared sex differences irrefutably proved by hard science."
I hope this isn't more "reframing" , Kate.
"a. That certain sex differences IN BEHAVIOUR were irrefutably proved. I think one can argue that there is evidence to show that there are differences on the whole between the average man and the average woman. However, I am not at all convinced by certain arguments relating those biological differences to social roles. I remain open minded."
Social roles are different than behavioral tendencies. Someone here already pointed this out to you, but you persist in missing that point.
"b. That feminism is necessarily founded on believing there are NO sex differences."
I didn't say "sex differences" Here's what I said:
"To conclude there is NO behavioral difference based on proven biological difference is lofty at best."
More "reframing" , Kate?
"I asked you who was making this argument and you said 'radical feminists.' So I must ask you again: who, specifically, amongst radical feminists is making this argument?"
Now I will respond to this question to defend the statement I DID make & not the statement you pulled out of thin air. The feminists that sponsored this website:
http://education.qld.gov.au/students/advocacy/equity/gender-sch/issues/gender-same.html...Have this to say: "Gender is a pattern of behaviours recognised as 'feminine' or 'masculine'. It is socially constructed, learned behaviour. Accordingly, gender differs between societies and across the social, ethnic and cultural groups within societies. Even for a single individual, gender behaviours change over time and within different social contexts"
Now this is just one example. If you'd like to find more, do a google search for "social construction of gender"
"c. My main point - and I can't believe this is the one you picked up on, Bluedye - is that it is rather hubristic to call any scientific finding 'irrefutable.' "
When biologists find brain structure differences & different chemicals, they find brain structure differences & different chemicals. If you'd like to refute the fact that they found them, then knock yourself out.
"...This may seem a small point to you, but actually it is a crucial one in science - and, as I pointed out - one of the main things that distinguishes the scientific method from faith or ideology. In other words, I believe it is a strength. If you cannot understand why, then your argument is with eg. Karl Popper. Feel free to critique the notion of falsifiability by all means. Please note: this argument has nothing to do with feminism or anti-feminism, merely the wrong-headed arguments some people were making with regards to science. I argue that science in the service of ideology has, historically, been a dangerous and misused tool. How come you can accept that if you think about science in the service of feminism, but not if it is in the service of Men's rights?"
When brain differences were discovered, the whole "men & women are the same thing except for sexual organs" theory was disproven. Scientists found differences in the brain. The house of cards the feminists built their theory upon sustained a major blow there.
So we're not talking about an "ideology" anymore when it comes to men & women being different outside of sex organs. ...So if I see one group (the feminists) still clinging to the "gender is a social construction" theories when the carpet has been all but yanked out from under them, I wonder why they do this. When I see them talk about the fallible nature of science & NOT the fallible nature of feminism, I wonder why I see the one-sided approach to data gathering.
As I've already stated... feminists have given me no reason to believe what they have to say. In fact, the amount of hypocrisy & outright lies by the feminists coupled with the malicious assault of my gender gives me reasons to reject what they have to say upon sight. While science may not be perfect, the history of scientific innovation & exploration has given me the confidence (not hubris) to lean more toward what they have to say.
The history of feminism? Well, you know.
So now that I'm no longer on the defensive... I was wondering if you have the same level of scrutiny for feminist theory as you do for scientific theory. You seem to have many issues with science & I haven't seen the same analytical finger pointed around at feminist theory. Your thoughts?