4 ms·
What’s your evidence there was no backlash? This kind of finding seems like the type of thing both MRAs and a majority of feminists¹ would object to. I can’t e
by erikpukinskis 7y ago
What’s your evidence there was no backlash? This kind of finding seems like the type of thing both MRAs and a majority of feminists¹ would object to.
I can’t even see the title of the original paper since this one is paywalled. I was going to go try to quantify this “absence of backlash” you mentioned.
¹ It is sort of an interesting question, which majority of feminists that is. Some liberal, trans-inclusive, biological-constructivist feminists who believe in a notion of a “female brain” would potentially see no problem with the study. That is quite a minority though. The vast majority of liberal feminists would be “social constructivist” feminists who believe male/female brain differences are overblown and would view the study incredulously. Similarly, some biological-essentialist radical feminists do believe in comprehensive sex differences, and would be amenable to the finding. These would be your typical “man haters”, who are vocal online because their ideas are not welcome hardly anywhere. However, the vast majority of radical feminists believe the male/female sex differences have primarily to do with reproductive organs and, again, brain differences are overblown. And therefore would also be incredulous of the result. So all-in-all the vast majority of feminists would by default object to the study. But there is a sex-essentialist slice that cuts across the liberal/radical divide who would entertain the ideas.
On the MRA side too I believe there are sex essentialists who would be fine with the study, although many more liberal MRAs would object to it purely on the grounds of it portraying men in a negative light. I’m less familiar with the ideological divisions in that group though.
As a side note, this is part of why liberal and radical feminists are able to hate each other and talk past each other: both sides can credibly accuse the other of harboring biological essentialists.
- anon1m0us 7y agoMy only evidence is that I didn't hear of one. Didn't even hear about the studies. Perhaps they just confirmed what everyone already thought or wanted to believe or the gender disparaged by the studies didn't care enough to raise a fuss. Whatever the reason. I did hear about the president of Harvard being fired though. I read about The Bell Curve. Damore. The list goes on and on. You must know what I'm talking about. Maybe I'm just biased so I filter bubble out evidence that sexism is sexist.
- astine 7y agoFor the record, I've definitely seen backlash against the 'male brain' hypothesis for autism, which is that this study is ultimately about. The guy who first proposed it was Simon Baron-Cohen who is a well known autism researcher and there were people, especially female autists who felt that they were being overlooked or compared to men, who complained about it. Some even accused of Baron-Cohen of bigotry of various sorts. I think the 'male brain' hypothesis has largely remained in the autism research sphere and so hasn't had as much visibility, which might explain why there isn't a huge 'cancel-culture' backlash. There needs to be a certain threshold of visibility before that kind of backlash can happen. https://autistscorner.blogspot.com/2011/09/simon-baron-cohen-responds-to-criticism.html https://autistscorner.blogspot.com/2011/09/simon-baron-cohen...
- tomlock 7y agoI've got a philosophy/gender studies background and I +1 this summary. The only point I'd make is that "radical feminist" doesn't necessarily mean anti-trans, and of the radfems I know, the vast majority are actually pro-trans. I get the feeling from news and commentary that radfems are overall welcoming to trans people.