Posts
I did not intend to do another post on feminism this week,
but Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker has offered a few remarks that are worth
noting and quoting.
In an interview with Oliver Burkeman Pinker remarks on the fact that the academic thought police have stifled conversation and studies of gender
difference.
Given this tyranny, you might say that we can’t have too
many posts debunking it.
Beware of dogmatic ideologues who want to control your mind.
Burkeman reports on his interview with Pinker:
"The
possibility that men and women might differ for reasons other than
socialization, expectations, hidden biases and barriers is very close to an
absolute taboo," Pinker tells me. He faults books such as Lean In, by
Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, for not entertaining the
notion that men and women might not have "identical life desires."
But he also insists that taking the possibility of such differences seriously
need not lend any justification to policies or prejudices that exclude women
from positions of expertise or power.
4 comments:
Interesting that one can see the failure of ideas as their adherents almost always reach the point of trying to shut down dialogue or make an enemy out of anyone who might challenge their assertions.
Name any issue that the Left in this country tries to foist upon this country and one always sees the above actions demonstrated writ large.
Any concept or idea that has true credibility will easily withstand differing opinions and challenges. Is that not one of the goals of "real" science.
One only has to ask the question, "Why would feminists have to make and enemy out of 50 percent of the population if it had true validity.
The vast majority of men never made enemies out of women and Lord knows most of us have found women quite unique.
"But he (Pinker) also insists that taking the possibility of such differences seriously need not lend any justification to policies or prejudices that exclude women from positions of expertise or power."
Oh, the perils of dealing with interviewers bent on strutting their own progressivist cred. It does not appear, from the text, that Pinker said any such thing. Whence this genderfeminist strawman about "policies or prejudices" -- except, perhaps, straight out of activist cant about glass ceilings?
These days, women in corporations, institutions, and government are on a turbocharged elevator toward "positions of expertise or power".
If Pinker is suggesting, as I think he is, that all individuals should have the opportunity to succeed or to fail in the market, I have no problem.
I believe he is also suggesting, as I have, that this is fundamentally different from saying that we must have an equal number of men and women in the boardroom or on the football team.
My problem isn't with Pinker's remark. I'm objecting to the interviewer perverting what Pinker said to make his own, gratuitous reference to professional women as a victim group.
Indeed, where is this retrograde effort to craft policies or exercise prejudices to "exclude women from positions of expertise or power" taking place? Government? Universities? Big Business? NOGs? If it isn't happening, we don't need the interviewer bolstering his own femcred by riffing off of Pinker's comments.
Post a Comment