Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 16 of 236 (178606)
01-19-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by contracycle
01-19-2005 5:38 AM


just a clarification...
just recently the president of Harvard triggered much criticism by arguing for innate biological differences explaining the absence of women in positions of power. Whether a valid use of the reserach or otherwise, it is being used to advance conservative arguments.
Summers didn't "argue for innate biological differences". He gave a list of possible (not probable) reasons why those holding high positions in science and math are disproportionally male, and innate differences was at the bottom of that list, following various social issues. The purpose of the list was to serve as points to research why women are not filling powerful roles in math/science, in order to improve the situation.
Summers was giving a talk at an educational conference, and was promoting the improvement of the ranks of women in science.
I find it sad that a man apparently cannot hypothetically mention the possibility of innate differences between men and women without being labeled a sexist and accused of "advancing conservative arguments".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by contracycle, posted 01-19-2005 5:38 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by contracycle, posted 01-21-2005 6:57 AM pink sasquatch has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 21 of 236 (179320)
01-21-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by contracycle
01-21-2005 6:57 AM


clarification...?
This response is not unreasonable, however, because of the frequency with which it actually appears.
Oh I see. It is okay to be unreasonable as long as you are basing that attitude upon stereotypes.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by contracycle, posted 01-21-2005 6:57 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024