2 ms·
Okay see I remember seeing the article that made the berry link. Like actual honest to god degree holding scientists (of some discipline) were willing to be quo
by Avshalom 18y ago
Okay see I remember seeing the article that made the berry link. Like actual honest to god degree holding scientists (of some discipline) were willing to be quoted on that hypothesis. A hypothesis that I, completely out of my field, just poked a half a dozen major holes in.
I didn't "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because that claim is made by misogynists," I said the berry explanation may have been made by misogynists. I suspect at the very least it was made by morons.
But despite your seeming distaste for Women's Studies, academia has a well documented history of misogyny that needs to be remembered anytime an argument is made that is so close to "women are physically adapted to housework." Particularly when, like I said above, a lack of evidence for some claim is blatantly obvious.
- philwelch 18y agoMore generally, it can be said that academia has a well documented history of basing claims on some sort of social or political assumption or agenda. Increasingly, those have come to include liberal agendas like feminism and racial equality. The solution is not increased political consciousness (all that accomplishes is exchanging one political bias for another) but rather better application of the scientific principles we already have.