How the APA interprets research on gender differences

Read this 1 page article- http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx

This brief article has a lot to say, however, the following quote is extremely pertinent and therefore deserves attention:

…even where there are patterns of cognitive differences between males and females, “differences are not deficiencies.” She continues, “Even when differences are found, we cannot conclude that they are immutable because the continuous interplay of biological and environmental influences can change the size and direction of the effects some time in the future.”(emphasis mine)

I think too many people, men and women, get bogged down by the idea of differences implying some type of value statement when in fact differences do not need to be viewed this way. When we use the word “equal” we do not mean totally and utterly the same in every facet possible.  If this is the standard of equality, then nothing is truly equal. However, equal has a much deeper meaning as it relates to dignity and intrinsic value as an individual human being. Humans are ends in themselves- not simply means to an end. Nor should our intrinsic value be measured by some external number or outcome. If we measure people’s value merely on what they can produce then we are on a slippery slope to a place that has historically been the cause of much pain and death.  Men and women have differences but so does every individual within each group.

The question to me is not, whether or not our genes and the environment impact our views and behaviors. The question is- which views and behaviors ought we to have? This question presupposes that we have agency to act outside of the restraints of our sociobiological situation and that there is an objective (opinion independent) standard by which to measure good vs. bad (and what a “good” society or individual might look like).  However, this this view immediately throws out naturalistic determinism (no free will) as well as the idea of complete moral relativism. I am under the impression that the vast majority of today’s leading social scientists and psychologists in gender research, take for granted the fact that they are aiming to create a “good” society in the objective sense.  For on their worldview, “good” is simply a social construct and therefore they cannot complain when someone disagrees.

Offensive? It shouldn’t be. True? You tell me.

Article: “Dutch may allow assisted suicide for those who feel life is over”

Dutch may allow assisted suicide for those who feel life is over”  (Reuters)

The Dutch government intends to draft a law that would legalize assisted suicide for people who feel they have “completed life,” but are not necessarily terminally ill, it said on Wednesday.

The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia, in 2002, but only for patients who were considered to be suffering unbearable pain with no hope of a cure.

In a letter to parliament, the health and justice ministers said details remain to be worked out but that people who “have a well-considered opinion that their life is complete, must, under strict and careful criteria, be allowed to finish that life in a manner dignified for them.”

Albert Mohler comments here on how every time a piece of legislation like this is passed, the proponents of the bill will declare that the bill will never lead to further radical misuses in the future.  In this case it is easy to see that opening the door to assisted suicide will lead to a broader cultural acceptance and encouragement of suicide for non-medical reasons. An actual slippery slope.

Article: “Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty”

 

Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty (Washington Post)

In a speech not long before she launched her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton made a stunning declaration of war on religious Americans. Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”…

…They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”

Palmieri responds that Catholicism “is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.” “Excellent point,” Halpin responds, adding that “they can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.” Podesta is included on both emails.

Albert Mohler comments here on how it is apparently the worst of the worst to be considered an “evangelical”.  So much for tolerance!

On a side note: the idea of subsidiarity is an amazing idea and represents of how the framers of the Constitution and many founding fathers viewed the role and responsibilities of the federal government compared to local and state authority.  Very libertarian and limited government oriented.

Article:”The Ridiculous Crusade for Gender-Neutral Toys”

 

The Ridiculous Crusade for Gender-Neutral Toys

We never taught our kids any of this stuff. They just arrived at it on their own. Because—I understand that this is a radical concept—boys and girls are different….

…One of the oddities of modern life is that polite society currently insists that you are “born this way” if you are homosexual or misgendered. But when it comes to boys who like to play with swords and build fighter jets? For some reason, this is viewed as a societal construct that should be eradicated so that they’ll want to play with dolls.

As we’ve discovered at my house, this is a project that’s doomed to fail.