Would people who want true equality have any reason to?
CAustin, care to add one more line as to why you think that it's a problem with social sciences and humanities... I think we may have an agreement here, just want to know what you'd think is the primary problem with SS&H...
disagree with Christina Hoff Sommers?
She for one believes in seeing truth for what it is, and the net result?
I quote --
""Thug," "parasite," "dangerous," a "female impersonator"--those are some of the labels applied to me when I exposed specious feminist statistics in my 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? (Come to think of it, none of my critics contacted me directly with their concerns before launching their public attacks.) "
Wow my edits are posting all over the place.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Well - I'm actually less inclined to call the complaint described in your source there as a problem specifically with feminism so much as I'm inclined to call it a problem with the social sciences and humanities (as opposed to the physical sciences and a few other similar disciplines) in general.
The article basically talks about the pomp and circumstance of disagreement - and it's a topic that's been discussed many times before, from which little has resulted. The author complains that she aired some evidence-based, academic complaints about some colleague's works, and those colleagues took offense to the challenge (and then goes to complain about the hypocrisy of the counterattacks, not to mention the fact that they seemed more personal than academic).
Unfortunately, this is pretty normal among the social sciences and humanities, and those of us with experience with the academic power structures surrounding them and other fields often come away from such fields with a bad taste in our mouths, and a little less respect for the conclusions of the involved fields.
To make some brief analogies, disagreement in the physical sciences is like talking sports with buddies, whereas disagreement in the social sciences seems more like talking politics at the dinner table of a tense family. Disagreement in my fields, as well as in the physical sciences in general and certain spheres of business and engineering, is a routine and cordial thing. If you bring up an idea, you can expect all your friends and colleagues to try to tear it apart, as well as thousands of other experts you've never met - it's their job, and it's the very process that ensures that your idea is good (or proves that it isn't). It's a cordial thing, and if your idea gets shot down, your thoughts are more focused on the merits of the counter-idea, and it's unusual and in fact wholly strange to feel 'attacked' by the person arguing with you.
In the social sciences, on the other hand, there are these hierarchies and rules to who can argue with whom - powerful people who shouldn't be challenged, powerful ideas that it's in one's best interest to support, carefully arranged pecking orders. If making a challenge to a physicist is like making a chess move against her, making a challenge to a feminist law professor is more akin to talking smack about him behind his back - disagreement in the social sciences seems to be regarded as an altogether more hostile thing to do.
It's unfortunate, and it's been noticed by many people over many years, but it seems that some sciences (not surprisingly, generally the ones where it's more difficult to objectively confirm or disprove ideas) are less scientific than others, being more prone to propriety, ritual, fads and prophets than the theory, testing and open push and pull of ideas that are supposed to characterize them.
- venturLv 43 years ago
It incredibly relies upon on the area. in case you mean equivalent in tastes and looks or skills. No, each and every man or woman is unique and diverse. No human has the comparable DNA with yet another DNA. all of us advance up in diverse environments, getting to grasp particularly some issues. yet, EQUALITY, like in "All adult men are created equivalent" has to do greater with our humanness, it extremely is how we could desire to consistently proportion the earth as equivalent companions, equivalent "under the regulation" while it is composed of being judged. meaning no count in case you're restrained to a wheel-chair with a poor incapacity, or if your IQ is a few distance under usual, you're nonetheless a man or woman, born of females and should not be dealt with with much less admire than an athlete, a genius or somebody who's a millionaire. regrettably, some human beings do have faith that those blessed with greater skill or greater wealth are by some ability "particular" human beings and could "get greater" or be respected greater. yet, the perfect worldwide is one, IMO, the place we don't create a classification-gadget in keeping with wealth, delivery or different standards. That has been finished earlier and in basic terms weakened society. It replaced into as quickly as suggested that it takes "2 human beings" to hold yet another man or woman down, what a waste of factors, time and power. a lot greater helpful to grant all of us the "equivalent risk" to realize the perfect they could with what skills they do have. it extremely is my 2 cents.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Can't say, I haven't read her book. It would help if I had the details, and not just the word af a well known anti feminist, and a one - page - article.
- Rio MadeiraLv 71 decade ago
I'm skeptical of her because her research is largely funded by right-wing think tanks. She may make some good theoretical points, but I'm wary of her numbers.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I read that book and enjoyed it. It is good to have women on our side of this.
I recall her descriptions of how prominent feminists threatened to have their "friends in Washington" cut off research grants for any anti-feminist agenda. It is the source of my tongue in cheek response to this question: