09-10-2013, 02:18 PM
undead_knight نوشته: البته متاسفانه دانش هم از سوی دانشمندان و هم از سوی دیگران مورد سواستفاده قرار میگیره، چه اینکه بعضی با اهداف ایدولوژیک دانش رو دچار تفسیر های غیر علمی میکنند و چه اینکه به دستاورد ها و یافته های علمی حملات ایدولوژیک میشه.این اختلاف رد انحراف معیار اتفاقا بسیار مهم است و اتفاقا مزاحم تحریفها و یاوههایِ فمینیستها پیرامون مزیت مردی که میگویند موفقیت در بالای هرم باید 50-50 باشد و انحراف از آن نشان از مزیت مردی دارد، یعنی دلیل موفقیت بیشتر مردان را از رقابت شدیدتر فرهنگ یا ژنتیکی به «مزیت مردی» جعل میکنند و البته آن معلولان مرد که روی دیگذ این انحراف معیار هستند را هم که همواره در نگر زنان فمینیست و غیر فمینیست نامرئی بودهاند بخاطر «مزیت مردی» و «مردیسالاری» بسادگی زیر پا له میکنند.
میشه از پژوهش های مثلا علمی حرف زد که در زمانه برتراند راسل و پیش از اون تلاش میکردند اثبات کنند "زن ها احمقند" یا اینکه پژوهش جنسیتی یا نژادی و... مورد حمله قرار بگیرند.
در هر حال "آیکیو" معادل "هوش" نیست چون هنوز سر تعریف هوش اختلاف نظر زیاده و بهترین چیزی که شاید آیکیو میتونه نشون بده میشه گفت ادراک ریاضی و تحلیلیه.
از دید من هم سانسورهای اجتماعی-سیاسی باید محکوم بشند ولی خب همینکه شهریار عزیز میخواد آیکیو رو و اون هم نه میانگینشو(که اکثریت مردها در این بخش هستند) بلکه اقلیت رو تائیدی بر اینکه " مردان باهوش تر هستند" در نظر بگیره از طیف همون زورچاپونی های ایدولوژیک هست:)
و البته پیشگیری از مغالطهیِ همیشگی اینکه کدام فمینیست چنین گفته و اینها اصلا اثری ندارند و فمیسنیت واقعی نیستند خوب است بدانید که اینها کس و شعرهایِ فراگیر فمینیستی هستند که از هیلاری کیلینتون گرفته تا بقیه میگویند.بخشی از اسمای از زبان استیون پینکر(از کتاب لوح سفید، صفحهیِ 354):
Hausman and Gottfredson are lonely voices, because the gender gap is almost always analyzed in the following way.
Any imbalance between men and women in their occupations or earnings is direct proof of gender bias — if not in
the form of overt discrimination, then in the form of discouraging messages and hidden barriers. The possibility that
men and women might differ from each other in ways that affect what jobs they hold or how much they get paid may
never be mentioned in public, because it will set back the cause of equity in the workplace and harm the interests of
women. It is this conviction that led Friedan and Clinton, for example, to say that we will not have attained gender
equity until earnings and representation in the professions are identical for men and women. In a 1998 television
interview, Gloria Steinem and the congresswoman Bella Abzug called the very idea of sex differences “poppycock”
and “anti-American crazy thinking,” and when Abzug was asked whether gender equality meant equal numbers in
every field, she replied, “Fifty-fifty — absolutely.”62 This analysis of the gender gap has also become the official
position of universities. That the presidents of the nation's elite universities are happy to accuse their colleagues of
shameful prejudice without even considering alternative explanations (whether or not they would end up accepting
them) shows how deeply rooted the taboo is.
The problem with this analysis is that inequality of outcome cannot be used as proof of inequality of opportunity
unless the groups being compared are identical in all of their psychological traits, which is likely to be true only if we
are blank slates. But the suggestion that the gender gap may arise, even in part, from differences between the sexes
can be fightin’ words. Anyone bringing it up is certain to be accused of “wanting to keep women in their place” or
“justifying the status quo.” This makes about as much sense as saying that a scientist who studies why women live
longer than men “wants old men to die.” And far from being a ploy by self-serving men, analyses exposing the flaws
of the glass-ceiling theory have largely come from women, including Hausman, Gottfredson, Judith Kleinfeld, Karen
Lehrman, Cathy Young, and Camilla Benbow, the economists Jennifer Roback, Felice Schwartz, Diana Furchtgott-
Roth, and Christine Stolba, the legal scholar Jennifer Braceras, and, more guardedly, the economist Claudia Goldin
and the legal scholar Susan Estrich
Any imbalance between men and women in their occupations or earnings is direct proof of gender bias — if not in
the form of overt discrimination, then in the form of discouraging messages and hidden barriers. The possibility that
men and women might differ from each other in ways that affect what jobs they hold or how much they get paid may
never be mentioned in public, because it will set back the cause of equity in the workplace and harm the interests of
women. It is this conviction that led Friedan and Clinton, for example, to say that we will not have attained gender
equity until earnings and representation in the professions are identical for men and women. In a 1998 television
interview, Gloria Steinem and the congresswoman Bella Abzug called the very idea of sex differences “poppycock”
and “anti-American crazy thinking,” and when Abzug was asked whether gender equality meant equal numbers in
every field, she replied, “Fifty-fifty — absolutely.”62 This analysis of the gender gap has also become the official
position of universities. That the presidents of the nation's elite universities are happy to accuse their colleagues of
shameful prejudice without even considering alternative explanations (whether or not they would end up accepting
them) shows how deeply rooted the taboo is.
The problem with this analysis is that inequality of outcome cannot be used as proof of inequality of opportunity
unless the groups being compared are identical in all of their psychological traits, which is likely to be true only if we
are blank slates. But the suggestion that the gender gap may arise, even in part, from differences between the sexes
can be fightin’ words. Anyone bringing it up is certain to be accused of “wanting to keep women in their place” or
“justifying the status quo.” This makes about as much sense as saying that a scientist who studies why women live
longer than men “wants old men to die.” And far from being a ploy by self-serving men, analyses exposing the flaws
of the glass-ceiling theory have largely come from women, including Hausman, Gottfredson, Judith Kleinfeld, Karen
Lehrman, Cathy Young, and Camilla Benbow, the economists Jennifer Roback, Felice Schwartz, Diana Furchtgott-
Roth, and Christine Stolba, the legal scholar Jennifer Braceras, and, more guardedly, the economist Claudia Goldin
and the legal scholar Susan Estrich
"Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as a 'country run by Jews,'" —Ezra Pound