tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7867075923272811174.post8952012232232763671..comments2014-12-04T13:56:22.584-08:00Comments on Psych0drama: Why I think Rebecca Watson seriously misleads - Part 1.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7867075923272811174.post-47396768124886112162013-04-15T12:41:42.893-07:002013-04-15T12:41:42.893-07:00Hi Chemoluminescent and thanks for the response.
...Hi Chemoluminescent and thanks for the response. <br /><br />I personally feel that feminism is better understood as a political perspective than a religious one. The rubbish (like the notion that to examine sex difference is to demean a sex) that is packaged with the worthwhile (like the notion that small statistical differences should not justify discrimination) is often overlooked because both the rubbish and the worthwhile both "serve the cause". <br /><br />In this it has much in common with all other political perspectives. The rubbish can even be said to be useful because it tends to spark more debate (being as it inherently more debateable) and helps illuminate the worthwhile. Even really stupid rubbish such as "why won't men talk about rape" works on a political level - because it provokes discussion about rape, but on a scientific level it's just nonsense.<br /><br />The problem with this is that when the perspective claims to be consistent with the values of scepticism and science, the rubbish comes under assault from those who are very good at assaulting rubbish, and those who hold the perspective feel under attack.<br /><br />That's what I reckon anyway.Dave Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17528644511067252734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7867075923272811174.post-45046061530488012352013-03-29T23:13:51.924-07:002013-03-29T23:13:51.924-07:00Those types of commercially commissioned studies a...Those types of commercially commissioned studies are quite common and are often bunk. However, I agree that she should critique the actual content and conclusions of the study rather than the pseudo-journalism that describes it.<br /><br />This is how people like Rebecca operate when it comes to anything that might paint women in what she perceives to be a negative light:<br /><br />1. Make a conclusion: there are no psychological differences between men and women and, if there are some, the only differences are where women are better.<br /><br />2. Reject any evidence that doesn't support said conclusion and accept any evidence that does.<br /><br />I have often suspected that even the most otherwise "rational" people still respond emotionally to one thing or another; and for career feminists like Rebecca Watson that thing is her gender. She is like a religious person when it comes to that. She just believes, on faith, that anything that she perceives as showing that women tend to behave negatively in some way compared to men is automatically bullshit. Of course, like a true femtheist, it never works the other way around (except for, perhaps, from time to time in order to keep up the appearance that she is being truly unbiased--she isn't).Chemoluminescenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08298374017252186422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7867075923272811174.post-54067930141418669852013-03-24T15:15:04.572-07:002013-03-24T15:15:04.572-07:00Wow. And this chick calls herself a scientist? C...Wow. And this chick calls herself a scientist? Call me skeptical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com