Hi Tom, Happy New Year to you, and thanks for the interesting article. Healthy scepticism certainly helps to combat feminist junk research.
I have recently read an excellent book which also touches on some areas of gender differences and socially accepted fallacies. It is "The Blank Slate: the modern denial of human nature" by Steven Pinker. It is an informative and readable book on nature/nurture issues, which critically examines the politically correct but questionable 'nurture-only' philosophy found in ideologies such as feminism. The Blank Slate was first published in 2002, and is now available in paperback. Steven Pinker is a Professor of Psychology at Harvard. Cheers, Vincent Patrick ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Knoll wrote: > FYI. Tom > > Quote: The area where the feminist spin is most operational is that of > brain research. I've read numerous articles on the subject over the last > decade or so and, every time I do, I know I can expect two things. The > first is the casting of men as inferior if not irrevocably flawed beings. > > http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn4.htm > > News With Views > 7 January 2005 > > When Science and Feminism Become Bedfellows > By Selwyn Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > One curious thing about scientific pronouncements is that they often seem > to accord more with the spirit of the age than fact and reason. Thus, a > Nazi researcher in 1930's Germany would analyze data from only one angle > and state, "You see, this vindicates our assertion that the Aryans are the > master race." Now, lest you think that such provincial thinking doesn't > plague our enlightened age, I can assure you, it's alive and well - only > the ends have changed. > > Many agendas exist in the world of "objective" science, but none does more > violence to science's search for and relation of truth than the feminist > one. And the effect of feminism goes far and deep but, needless to say, its > filters are most employed in the area of sex differences. > > Not too long ago feminists were deathly afraid of such study, fearing that > the differences found would indicate that men were superior, thwarting > their agenda and providing a justification for discrimination. So a > doctrine was developed stating that the sexes were the same, except for the > superficial physical differences, and that differences in behavior between > them were solely the result of upbringing. > > This was a fact. It was palpably obvious. It was unarguable, unassailable > and undeniable. Suggesting otherwise became a third rail of American > discourse, constituted sacrilege and visited upon the offender scorn, > pillorying and a branding with the label "sexist" > > But then came the 1990's and research demonstrating conclusively that the > sexes were different in everything but their souls, from the womb to the > tomb. The feminists had been wrong - unarguably, unassailably, undeniably. > Not that a collective admission of this and commensurate contrition would > be forthcoming. Oh, the latter especially was most certainly in order, > given the fact that child-rearing prescriptions based on their > misconception had greatly contributed to the destruction of American > parenting. But the feminist response would be quite different. > > Seemingly without missing a beat, the feminists changed their tack. Yes, > most assuredly these differences exist and surprised not are we. For, you > see, they prove that women are superior! I am woman, hear me crow. In fact, > it spawned a whole new, albeit obscure, branch of feminism: "Femaleism." > Although, don't think I'm laying all the blame for this at the ladies' > doorstep. For, this chorus of soprano voices is joined by the tenor ones of > men whose psyches are clad in black rubber suits, and who seem to revel in > what they fancy to be their newfound subordinate status. > > The area where the feminist spin is most operational is that of brain > research. I've read numerous articles on the subject over the last decade > or so and, every time I do, I know I can expect two things. The first is > the casting of men as inferior if not irrevocably flawed beings. The second > is specious reasoning and tendentious conclusions that lend that claim > credence. > > For instance, there's a type of brain research called functional magnetic > resonance imaging [fMRI]. A fMRI can measure brain activity by creating > multidimensional images of blood flow to various parts of the brain. In > other words, the device produces a map of the brain and designates > different levels of blood flow with different colors. Consequently, > scientists can determine what part or parts of a subject's brain are > involved in the performance of a given task. If a part of the brain becomes > a certain color, bingo, it's as busy as a bee. > > So, one day I was reading a piece on just such research. In it was stated > that when performing various tasks many areas of women's brains would be > active, whereas only one area of men's brains would. The conclusion was, > not surprisingly, that the female brain may be able to tackle a problem > more effectively because a woman "uses more of her brain." It seems like a > tenable theory. Very convincing indeed. > > But some moons later it just so happened that I was reading another article > on the subject and I came upon a very curious analysis. Its author spoke > about fMRI research involving the task of recognizing faces and, lo and > behold, it was men's brains that lit up all over the map. What struck me, > though, was the conclusion: "This may mean that men's brains have to work > harder to perform the task!" I wonder, pray tell, to what can we attribute > such diametrically opposite conclusions when viewing the same data? Really, > the equation is obvious: same phenomenon + different sex + same agenda = > different conclusion. Very interesting indeed. > > On yet a different occasion I was reading about the physical structures of > the brain. It was on that day that I learned that the corpus callosum - the > tissue that connects the right and left hemispheres of the brain - is > bigger in women than in men. This is said to create more interaction > between the two halves and the writer explained its effect in this manner, > "This may mean that a woman can make connections that won't occur to a man." > > On the other hand, when the size factor weighs in men's favor the bigger is > better argument goes the way of the dodo. For instance, men's brains are > about 11 percent larger than women's. But when mention of this is made, the > writer usually hastens to add that "There's no correlation between brain > size and intelligence" and sometimes includes, "The largest brain ever > discovered belonged to a man who was retarded." > > Now, I will submit to you my own set of conclusions with the promise that > they will be at least as well reasoned as, and far less contradictory than, > those of these often vaunted science writers. What does it mean when > numerous parts of women's brains become active while only one part of men's > does when performing most tasks? Well, it seems to me that this may > vindicate the old assertion that women are scatterbrained, since [with most > tasks anyway] women's brains become active in a "scattered" manner. > Moreover, if the norm for men is to only use the part of the brain > necessary to perform the task in question and quiet parts that would > conflict with its function, it's entirely possible that theirs is the more > efficient way of executing the task. This would be much that same as > performing a physical task and being sure to use only the necessary > muscles, while keeping the opposing muscles - which would work against the > former - relaxed. > > What about the affect of having a larger corpus callosum? Well, many have > observed that women often let emotion cloud their logic. And since that > tissue connects what could be termed the logical and emotional halves of > the brain, if its greater size means that there is in fact more interaction > between the emotional and logical realms, it's not a huge leap to say that > this may provide a scientific basis for that perception. > > Now, can I prove these assertions? No, not anymore than the minions of > feminism can prove theirs. Nor is it my intention to raise the ire of the > members of the fairer sex who will imbibe these words. However, I'll pit my > logic against these writers' and give them mighty good odds any day of the > week. For, it makes much more sense to interpret this research in light of > the wisdom born of millennia of observation by millions of individuals, > than it does to simply look at brain structures and characteristics and > attempt to divine what effect they should have. Why, the latter is very > much like studying the brain of an elephant, noting that it dwarfs man's, > ignoring what we know about the relative intelligence of the two beings and > concluding that elephants must be more intelligent. > > In fact, on occasion these science writers seem to agree with me. When > might this be? Well, oh, perhaps when the brain structure seems to confer > an advantage upon men, like the aforementioned greater brain size. It is > then that the divination of effect based on anatomy is dispensed with. > > Of course, sometimes the feminist bias manifests itself not in omitting > half [or more] of the possible conclusions but half of the facts. For > instance, it's very fashionable to bring to light men's characteristic sins > and weaknesses but women's are off limits. Moreover, women's strengths are > often focused on to the exclusion of men's and are sometimes even, dare I > say, invented. > > For example, we're so often told that boys are more likely than girls to be > born retarded, but seldom is it pointed out that there are infinitely more > male math geniuses than female ones [I've read the ratio is 13:1]. Or, we > may hear that boys are more likely to exhibit learning disabilities, but > seldom do we hear about the fact that the majority of highly gifted > children are also boys. Then again, it could be the statistic informing us > that men are involved in more auto accidents than women. Never, though, is > that fact put in perspective. The other half of the story is that it is > only the case because men drive far more on average, and that for every > million miles driven women get into more crashes > <http://www.junkscience.com/news2/womendri.htm>. > > Among the journalism school retreads who generate this pap, however, both > conscious and unconscious biases preclude them from providing such balance. > As for the former, it's no secret that most journalists never saw a > left-wing agenda they didn't like, and presenting such inconvenient facts > would conflict with feminist imperatives. As for the latter, it concerns > what I would call an affirmative-action mentality. If women are found > lagging behind in an area, well, it's obviously because of discrimination. > After all, we know they're equal, so what else could it be? > > When men are found wanting the modus operandi is very different. For, this > assumption of equality is suddenly conspicuously absent. The shortcoming is > assumed to be the result of some inherent weakness or flaw, rendering > further analysis unnecessary. All one needs to know are the tenets of > left-wing dogma, and he can then park his brain at the door of the > newsroom. And this from the crowd > that has most vociferously decried the practice of acting based on > unconscious prejudices. > > Needless to say, bad science is sometimes foisted upon the public by bad > scientists. Scientists are people, with emotions, aspirations, character > flaws and hang-ups, and agendas abound in their world just like in any > other. The first example of such an individual that comes to mind is the > man who peddled fraudulent research about human sexuality, Alfred Kinsey. > In all fairness, however, not all of the blame can be laid at the > scientific community's doorstep. > > You have to ask yourself, how is information about scientific research > related to us? Obviously, we rely on the media to disseminate it, and > therein lies the rub. One of the problems here is that many in the media > lack the ability to read a scientific study - usually written in scientific > parlance - and interpret it correctly. Couple that with the far greater > problem of now infamous media bias and you have a recipe for egregious > misinformation. > > The media bias manifests itself in two ways, the first one being the simple > act of distorting scientific findings - or accepting a distorted version of > them from others - simply because they serve to further a cherished cause. > A great example of this is the statistic that 150,000 women a year die from > anorexia. This was debunked by author Christina Hoff Sommers in her book > "Who Stole Feminism?"; Sommers ascertained that the actual figure was > approximately - get the digitalis, Ma - 145. But by this time the phony > statistic had already been touted as just more evidence of how this > infernal patriarchal culture objectifies women and destroys their psyches. > > Why were ostensibly intelligent people so willing to believe a statistic > whose magnitude should have raised a red flag? Quite simply, it affirmed > and accorded with their view of reality, which casts men in the role of > oppressors and women as the oppressed. > > A far more interesting science myth is the idea that all babies begin life > in the womb as females. I'm sure that this claim pleases feminists to no > end: that men are made out of women, and not the other way around like the > Bible tells us. After pondering the issue, I realized that the claim was an > illogical one and refuted it in a piece that I wrote some time ago. > Interestingly, however, I had been under the impression that this > misconception was the handiwork of philosophically inept researchers who > were leading naive journalists astray. Subsequently, though, I discovered > that this was not necessarily the position of the scientific community and > that, according to many within it, a child at such a nascent stage of > development could best be described as "intersex" [This is also a claim > that I dispute, but that's grist for a different day]. > > Then there is the element of media bias that is so often overlooked: what > the media choose to report on in the first place. Of course, as with how > issues will be framed, these determinations are often driven by the > misguided passions of those in the media. > > But then there's the matter of fringe science. Fringe science appeals to > self-serving journalists as well as self-serving scientists because its > often iconoclastic nature garners great attention, enabling second-rate > researchers to get published and intellectually vacuous journalists to grab > headlines. > > A good example of this is the most untenable claim that women will overtake > men in running events in the foreseeable future. The argument goes as > follows: when comparing the improvement in the track and field world > records of the sexes during the last forty years, one observes that the gap > between the sexes has been closing steadily. In other words, the women's > times have been improving at a more rapid rate than the men's. Based on > this, we can project that women will surpass men by such and such year. > > Now, I was well aware of the progression of such world records, but my > common-sense also told me why such patterns existed. After all, while men > have been deeply involved in sports for quite some time, women only started > participating in them seriously three to four decades ago. Consequently, > the gap in those days was greater than biology dictated it should be > because it was not just a function of biology but also lifestyle > differences. However, as women started participating in sports in greater > numbers the lifestyle difference factor was progressively diminished, > causing the gap between the sexes to shrink accordingly. But I also knew > that women wouldn't even start to approach parity - the gap would simply > take on the proportions that biology alone dictates. > > To test my hypothesis, I logged on to my trusty computer and started > analyzing the progression of world records. It wasn't difficult; inside of > fifteen minutes I was able to determine that the feminist claim was based > on a very selective analysis of data from the forty year time period. You > see, when I analyzed the most recent trends - those of the last fifteen > years - I found that the gap was closing not a whit. Then, upon doing > research for this article, I discovered the work of researchers who have > also punctured this myth. In fact, it's now said that the women are > actually getting slower relative to the men and that this is attributable > to drug-testing that prevents women from benefitting from the use of > synthetic male hormones [ Sportscience News, May-June 1997, > <http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9705/gengap.html>]. > > But this does beg a couple of questions: how is it that trained researchers > arrived at and published faulty conclusions that I, a layman working alone, > was able to put the lie to in two shakes of a lamb's tail? How is it that > journalists from Sacramento to Bangor accepted fringe science at face > value, completely ignoring that it was at variance with what was consensus > belief in the field? > > At the risk of being redundant, yes, it served to further the feminist > agenda. Just as significantly, however, the writers and researchers who > peddled this fringe science got their fifteen minutes of fame. This > explains why the very sound and abundant research debunking the myth in > question received little exposure, while the voodoo research propounding > the myth could not be printed fast enough by salivating journalists. > > The irony of this might be amusing if the implications weren't so grave. > You see, what it means is that it's far more likely that the media will > tell us about bad science than good science, which means that it's far more > likely than the American people will know about bad science than good > science. Think about it: every researcher in the field of exercise > physiology could be saying that men will remain pre-eminent in the athletic > arena, while one could claim the opposite. This presents you with a choice > of two possible headlines: "Men Will Continue to Surpass Women in Sports" > or, "Women Will Overtake Men in Sports." Now, which research do you think > will animate the pen of the average scribe? > > So, how does one separate the wheat from the chaff and avoid being played > for a fool? Well, one prerequisite for identifying scientific > pronouncements that are born of the spirit of the age is being familiar > with that spirit. Know that ours is that of political-correctness and > feminism constitutes a good part of its ectoplasm. It's an unholy spirit > that endeavors to remake society by by reshaping our view of reality, and > it knows that nothing buttresses an agenda more than conjuring up a > specious scientific basis for it. So cultivate a skeptical eye, because > until this spirit is exorcised we'll continue to be barraged with science > that's not worth the paper it's printed on. > > --- > > Selwyn Duke lives in Westchester County, New York. He's a tennis > professional, internet entrepreneur and writer whose works have appeared on > various sites on the Internet, including Intellectual Conservative, > nenewamerica.us (Alan Keyes) and Mensnet. Selwyn has traveled extensively > in his life, visiting exotic locales such as India, Morocco and Algeria and > quite a number of other countries while playing the international tennis > circuit. > > � 2005 Selwyn Duke - All Rights Reserved > > --- > > Additional Titles > http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwynA.htm > > Archive > > When Science and Feminism Become Bedfellows 1-7-05 > The Space Alien's View of the Separation of Church and State 12-29-04 > And the Children Will Rule Over Them 12-24-04 > Juicing Up the Argument 12-20-04 > The Re-Whitewashing of Pedophile Alfred Kinsey 12-16-04 > A.D., B.C. Not P.C. 12-2-04 > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease? Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts! http://us.click.yahoo.com/rkgkPB/UOnJAA/Zx0JAA/pyIolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boysed/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
