Feminism vs. Science

She’s Blinding Me With Science

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.

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 treated as 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 the formerly accepted misconceptions 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.’

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.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Feminism vs. Science”

  1. Fidelbogen Says:

    Yes, I have been aware for some time of this little phenomenon that you describe. Feminism is nothing if not protean!

    The earlier brand of feminism which you describe is what I call old-school feminism. Old school feminists are STILL around. . . and still preaching their old gospel, because they can’t afford to give it up entirely. Too much of feminsism’s core ideology is bound up in the “nurture not nature” line of thinking, and if they gave this up now, a sizeable chunk of their cognitive infrastructure would go straight down the pan right alongside of it!

    For example, they could pretty much kiss “patriarchy” good-bye! 😦

    And that is just for starters. . .

    So they aren’t letting go of old-school thinking just yet. Instead, they’re running it in tandem with the hip new ‘essentialism’ — like a different software program operating simultaneously on the same system, which they can toggle into or out of according to their needs.

    They are banking on the unsophistication of the majority of people, who can be relied upon not to spot the cognitive dissonance! 😉

  2. Fidelbogen Says:

    Yes, I have been aware for some time of this little phenomenon that you describe. Feminism is nothing if not protean!

    The earlier brand of feminism which you describe is what I call old-school feminism. Old school feminists are STILL around. . . and still preaching their old gospel, because they can’t afford to give it up entirely. Too much of feminsism’s core ideology is bound up in the “nurture not nature” line of thinking, and if they gave this up now, a sizeable chunk of their cognitive infrastructure would go straight down the pan right alongside of it!

    For example, they could pretty much kiss “patriarchy” good-bye! 😦

    And that is just for starters. . .

    So they aren’t letting go of old-school thinking just yet. Instead, they’re running it in tandem with the hip new ‘essentialism’ — like a different software program operating simultaneously on the same system, which they can toggle into or out of according to their needs.

    They are banking on the unsophistication of the majority of people, who can be relied upon not to spot the cognitive dissonance! 😉

  3. Fidelbogen Says:

    Yes, I have been aware for some time of this little phenomenon that you describe. Feminism is nothing if not protean!

    The earlier brand of feminism which you describe is what I call old-school feminism. Old school feminists are STILL around. . . and still preaching their old gospel, because they can’t afford to give it up entirely. Too much of feminsism’s core ideology is bound up in the “nurture not nature” line of thinking, and if they gave this up now, a sizeable chunk of their cognitive infrastructure would go straight down the pan right alongside of it!

    For example, they could pretty much kiss “patriarchy” good-bye! 😦

    And that is just for starters. . .

    So they aren’t letting go of old-school thinking just yet. Instead, they’re running it in tandem with the hip new ‘essentialism’ — like a different software program operating simultaneously on the same system, which they can toggle into or out of according to their needs.

    They are banking on the unsophistication of the majority of people, who can be relied upon not to spot the cognitive dissonance! 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: