Science vs. Feminism

Started by bluedye, May 14, 2007, 05:03 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

bluedye

Two of the resident feminists (Actually, one feminist & one "non-feminist who adheres to mainstream feminist ideals") here recently argued against scientific theory & defended feminist theory. 

That made me pretty curious.

Here's the issue:

We all know men generally behave differently than women.

We know the scientists theorize that the differences in brain biology/chemistry account for this difference.  Many of the MRAs have read multiple articles/books about these theories & have adopted the same conclusions based on that field of research.

We know that feminists think differences between the sexes are the result of societal programming.   The feminists have their share of documented "opinions" about this, but the only studies/expiriments I've seen to prove this have failed miserably.

So, I'd like to know why I should reject the scientific findings as they have done & adopt the feminist line of reasoning.

Am I baiting the feminists here?  Kind of... but I would really like to know if there is ANYTHING to their theory, or if it's just the wishful-thinking empowerment dreams of the feminist order.

I think this is a perfect opportunity for the feminists to explain their logic & reasoning to MRAs that tend to go with science for their conclusions about human behavior.


HER body, HER choice...  HIS responsibility?

dr e

 :happy1:  I fear we will be waiting a while.  Have some popcorn. 
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

poiuyt

Well the dichotomy of sex behaviors is far more politically complex than the above premises implies from the point of view of feminists. One must also bear in mind the influence of other bigots who themselves are first-culprits over and above feminists in the question of abuse of science.

Feminism will agree with scientific proofs of sex differences in behaviour where the advantages of acknowledging such differences flows into public policies favouring women. For example they will agree with scientific proofs of differences in gender behaviours with respect to nurturing children, because such acknowleged difference leads to the default policy position of mother custody of children is better on divorce. There are many other examples...

Feminism will disagree with scientific proofs of sex diferences in behaviour where there are potential public policy risks to the status and privileges of women flowing from such differences. For example feminists will disagree with scientific proofs of differences in gender behaviour with respect to abstract thingking if it means acknowleging that males are predisposed to taking harder subjects leading to better paid professions. There are many other examples here too...

In short feminists are not enemies of science per se, but have in fact co-opted it as just another useful tool in their arsenal of weapons against males in their societies.   


dr e


Well the dichotomy of sex behaviors is far more politically complex than the above premises implies from the point of view of feminists. One must also bear in mind the influence of other bigots who themselves are first-culprits over and above feminists in the question of abuse of science.

Feminism will agree with scientific proofs of sex differences in behaviour where the advantages of acknowledging such differences flows into public policies favouring women. For example they will agree with scientific proofs of differences in gender behaviours with respect to nurturing children, because such acknowleged difference leads to the default policy position of mother custody of children is better on divorce. There are many other examples...

Feminism will disagree with scientific proofs of sex diferences in behaviour where there are potential public policy risks to the status and privileges of women flowing from such differences. For example feminists will disagree with scientific proofs of differences in gender behaviour with respect to abstract thingking if it means acknowleging that males are predisposed to taking harder subjects leading to better paid professions. There are many other examples here too...

In short feminists are not enemies of science per se, but have in fact co-opted it as just another useful tool in their arsenal of weapons against males in their societies.   




Well said indeed!
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

brian44

#4
May 14, 2007, 08:36 AM Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 10:53 AM by brian44

Well the dichotomy of sex behaviors is far more politically complex than the above premises implies from the point of view of feminists. One must also bear in mind the influence of other bigots who themselves are first-culprits over and above feminists in the question of abuse of science.

Feminism will agree with scientific proofs of sex differences in behaviour where the advantages of acknowledging such differences flows into public policies favouring women. For example they will agree with scientific proofs of differences in gender behaviours with respect to nurturing children, because such acknowleged difference leads to the default policy position of mother custody of children is better on divorce. There are many other examples...

Feminism will disagree with scientific proofs of sex diferences in behaviour where there are potential public policy risks to the status and privileges of women flowing from such differences. For example feminists will disagree with scientific proofs of differences in gender behaviour with respect to abstract thingking if it means acknowleging that males are predisposed to taking harder subjects leading to better paid professions. There are many other examples here too...

In short feminists are not enemies of science per se, but have in fact co-opted it as just another useful tool in their arsenal of weapons against males in their societies.   




I agree with most of that, but some researchers actually interpret data or make biased conclusions in favour of women even before feminists look at it. There are big advantages to pandering to political correctness: like keeping your job or research grant!
It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did." Doris Lessing

bluedye

Quote from: poiuyt


Feminism will agree with scientific proofs of sex differences in behaviour where the advantages of acknowledging such differences flows into public policies favouring women. For example they will agree with scientific proofs of differences in gender behaviours with respect to nurturing children, because such acknowleged difference leads to the default policy position of mother custody of children is better on divorce. There are many other examples...


Well yea, that's 100% accurate, but I knew if I called them hypocritical (again) I'd be less likely to get a response.  So I guess there's a "thanks for ruining my plans" in order.  (kidding.)

I would still like to know if there is a basis for their rejection (when it suits them) of scientific findings with regards to masculine & feminine traits.

They have cited the fact that scientific theories are sometimes overturned as to why we should be wary of research into gender.  They claim the infallible nature of science gives them all the proof they need to reject the findings resulting from the scientific method.

I'd just like to know why the "feminist method" is better.  What do they have that's so convincing? 

Scientists are sometimes wrong.  Well feminists are also sometimes wrong.  I hope our resident feminists understand they have some explaining to do before we understand this seemingly one-sided logic.
HER body, HER choice...  HIS responsibility?

brian44


Scientists are sometimes wrong.  Well feminists are also sometimes wrong.  I hope our resident feminists understand they have some explaining to do before we understand this seemingly one-sided logic.


As I said above, when a research grant is at stake, research method and interpretation can be affected. I've seen lots of dodgy stuff out there from 'eminent' people. So I don't agree that the problem is just the way feminists accept/reject science to suit themselves. Some of the science is wrong as well.
It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did." Doris Lessing

Garak



Scientists are sometimes wrong.  Well feminists are also sometimes wrong.  I hope our resident feminists understand they have some explaining to do before we understand this seemingly one-sided logic.


As I said above, when a research grant is at stake, research method and interpretation can be affected. I've seen lots of dodgy stuff out there from 'eminent' people. So I don't agree that the problem is just the way feminists accept/reject science to suit themselves. Some of the science is wrong as well.



Wrong on purpose, not by accident.
I will stop staring at your boobs when you stop staring at my paycheck!

bluedye

#8
May 15, 2007, 05:12 AM Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 05:25 AM by bluedye
Quote from: brian44

As I said above, when a research grant is at stake, research method and interpretation can be affected. I've seen lots of dodgy stuff out there from 'eminent' people. So I don't agree that the problem is just the way feminists accept/reject science to suit themselves. Some of the science is wrong as well.


Right.  Scientists are sometimes wrong.  Wrong theories... wrong methods... wrong motivations.  No one is perfect.

I want to see the fems apply the same logic to feminism that they applied to science.  Unless... they feel feminism is infallible.
HER body, HER choice...  HIS responsibility?

brian44

Quote from: brian44

As I said above, when a research grant is at stake, research method and interpretation can be affected. I've seen lots of dodgy stuff out there from 'eminent' people. So I don't agree that the problem is just the way feminists accept/reject science to suit themselves. Some of the science is wrong as well.


Right.  Scientists are sometimes wrong.  Wrong theories... wrong methods... wrong motivations.  No one is perfect.


I wouldn't mind occasional incompetence, but it's the 'wrong motivations' as you say, that are dangerous. The correct motivation should be truth, not short term career, or grant, considerations. Although I understand that sometimes a whole career could be at stake, given the witch hunting power of political correctness. That would take a lot of courage to stand up to.


I want to see the fems apply the same logic to feminism that they applied to science.  Unless... they feel feminism is infallible.


Don't hold your breath...
It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did." Doris Lessing

bluedye

Quote from: brian44
I wouldn't mind occasional incompetence, but it's the 'wrong motivations' as you say, that are dangerous. The correct motivation should be truth, not short term career, or grant, considerations. Although I understand that sometimes a whole career could be at stake, given the witch hunting power of political correctness. That would take a lot of courage to stand up to.


I still don't think I should stop believing in the scientific method & the scientific findings because of the few that cover their asses to appease the PC crowd or promote junk science to get their names in print.

I know these types are dangerous.  I know they spread misinformation to get their names in print... but your statements are sounding like the feminists where it's almost as if you're trying to disuade  me from faith in science because of the times scientists have been wrong.

I'm not prepared to do that.

Quote from: brian44
Don't hold your breath...


It's improbable that they answer, but I think it's worth a shot.  We have two (probably more) feminists here right now & I think it's important to see exactly why they think the way they do.  This is their chance to prove to us that their views don't come from self-interest, sexism, & insecurity.
HER body, HER choice...  HIS responsibility?

Kate

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.
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.' I disagreed on the following counts:
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.
b.   That feminism is necessarily founded on believing there are NO sex differences. This is an absurd argument and Bluedye, who persists in making it without any evidence other than his own opinion, is only making himself look foolish. 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?
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.' 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?
Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?
-Walt Whitman

brian44


I still don't think I should stop believing in the scientific method & the scientific findings because of the few that cover their asses to appease the PC crowd or promote junk science to get their names in print.


When did I say you should stop believing in all science? The problem is that whenever women come out looking better than men or women are shown to be suffering more than men, you should at least look at the possibility that political correctness is partly to blame for the results. If the opposite findings were published then you can be sure it wasn't down to political correctness! (Although that doesn't guarantee it's right either, just more likely to be).
It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did." Doris Lessing

bluedye

Quote from: Kate
"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. 

Quote from: Kate
"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.

Quote from: 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.

Quote from: Kate
"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?

Quote from: 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"

Quote from: Kate
"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. 

Quote from: Kate
"...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?



HER body, HER choice...  HIS responsibility?

Kate

Hey bluedye - I will respond more fully to your post tomorrow. I will just say that yes, actually, I do *try* and scrutinise feminist theory also. I say try, because, if we're being honest, we all have blindspots. So I think it's much easier to point out the ones that we see in others. It doesn't have to be a destructive act...and just maybe, we will gain the skills needed to turn it on ourselves.  There are those who will say that is too idealistic but I have my reasons. So, I welcome discussion about feminist theory.
Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?
-Walt Whitman

Go Up