Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!nadel From: nadel@aerospace.aero.org (Miriam H. Nadel) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: sex/gender Message-ID: <3115@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Date: 23 Jul 89 00:43:33 GMT References: <8907071844.AA10158@cattell.psych.upenn.edu> <10546@polya.Stanford.EDU> <12869@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <43073@bbn.COM> Reply-To: elroy!ames!cadre.dsl.pitt.edu!geb (Gordon E. Banks) Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA. Lines: 83 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R In article <43073@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro writes: >In article <12869@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >> While it may be >>said to be scientifically valid to say that males of almost every >>mammalian species (including humans) are naturally more aggressive >>than females, the conclusion that females are doomed to lose in >>competition does not necessarily follow. > >The use of "mammalian" here (and elsewhere in this article) is a >classic ploy [blah, blah]. > >In fact, the kinds of highly complex gendered behavior we've been >talking about here has no parallel in the non-human world, mammalian >or otherwise. >for exactly the same reason. Are female chimps paid less than their >male counterparts? Do male squirrels tend to regard female squirrels >as sex objects? Have female voles been denied full subjecthood? We were only talking about aggression, not complex gendered behavior. If you want to argue with me, please argue against positions I adopt, not those you read into what I said. > >No, you've missed Mary's point completely here. The differences in >question are not "there", as pre-existing facts. They're >interpretations by sociologists or psychologists or what have you, and >as such they have, implicitly or explicitly, a political agenda. First, do you suppose there are *any* facts in science that are not subject to interpretation? Everything must be interpreted. Scientific facts must be interpreted within the scientific paradigm. Arguments to refute the facts must be based on flaws in the research, not after the manner of your ridiculous generalized accusation that those who have done the research which indicates gender differences (most are women) have done so to promote a political agenda. This arguemtn is gratuituous and ad hominem, as well as false. >Feminism offers a different agenda, a different set of interpretations >in which the claimed "differences" may well be seen to be arbitrary. > Yes, and creationist "deconstruction" provides a different set of interpretations for fossils, too. Let's just try keep these other paradigms separate from science, shall we? Of course no one can be totally objective, but I'll take the scientists over the creationists or the feminists on objectivity. > >>The fear of feminist wrath has somewhat inhibited publication of >>scientific results in the field of cognitive differences >>in brains of males and females > >!!! Can you justify this claim? I'd be astonished if this were true. One male researcher told me he would have liked to work on gender differences, but did not feel it was politically wise for a male to do so. Another who does work on it (in mammals) said that he has to be very careful about the titles of his talks and who finds out about his research. He is desperately trying to keep a low profile with respect to the press. His work shows that males are more strongly lateralized and he is very careful never to say anything that might imply that this has implications in humans for fear of the aforementioned "wrath". So yes, I know first hand that (some) people are afraid of this issue and downplaying it to keep out of trouble. (Sorry if this goes against your notion of why they are doing their work.) Hell, I'm a coward too: when I was called by a reporter who wanted me to give a statement about neurologic differences between males and females (she seemed to want me to say the there was some basis for there being less females in computer science), I could have told her some differences, but then I had this vision of pickets in front of the medical school...and told her to call a female collegue of mine (Jerri Levy) who was more qualified (and also hopefully more immune to feminist criticism). >A better approach is too show that these >supposedly objective differences aren't "facts" to be dealt with >(ethically or otherwise), but constructions and interpretations which >should be recognized as such. Good luck, but I think the ground is being cut out from under that argument as time goes on. Don't get left with the flat-earthers.