In comments on this post about pop-evolutionary psychology’s fascination with “proving” gender differences Holly Page from Whoopie School said.
...it’s interesting that of all the institutions that science has historically been willing to challenge, the “men are from Mars” notion isn’t one of them. By focusing on the differences, it validates treating people differently by gender or sexual orientation.
Exactly! It’s like… what if scientists refused to reconsider Rousseau’s remark that it was inevitable that one in four children would die of disease before age five? And all they did was set out to prove how inevitable that was? And considering that all it took to change that hugely was elementary sanitation like, say, keeping fecal bacteria out of drinking water! Meanwhile all it takes is equally elementary changes to effect tremendous gender equalization. And they’re almost never interested.
Odd blind spot, eh?
Submitted by 2589 (not verified) on Thu, 2008-12-18 19:02.
Bumblebees can't fly for the same reason that helicopters can't fly: not enough wing surface for a gliding flight. Yet apparently both of them have been seen actually flying. It must be magic!
And there are still people here and there who say "science can't yet prove how bumblebees can fly" just because decades ago some college student either didn't know or didn't understand the concept of hovering flight. Amazing.
My point is... um... I think my point is that once something becomes "common knowledge", people tend not to challenge it, and it sticks around for a long time even after it's been proven wrong. (Science could explain how bumblebees fly, even back when the statement was first made.) Something like that.
Submitted by 2589 (not verified) on Sat, 2008-12-20 01:47.
Actually, evolutionary psychology is challenging one very popular idea in social sciences: gender constructivism. Honest scientist are trying to interpret the evidence impartially, but popular writers are very eager to use it to promote their politics.
The same trend is shown in the original quote. Holly Page is repeating old fallacy against evolutionary psychology. She claims that knowledge about possible sex-spesific behavioral tendencies or inclinations is somehow validating moral evaluation or behavioral norms. This is of course bullshit.
Todays science shows only that gender is very comlex mixture of natural dispositions, cultural influence and individual choice. Where the edges of these influences really meet is a difficult question and the answer seems to vary from one person to another.