How the APA interprets research on gender differences

Read this 1 page article-

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: “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.

Contraceptives Tied to Risk of Depression? and other random resources

Why isn’t this receiving more attention in the media? Contraceptives Tied to Depression Risk (NY Times) Other Articles: Higher Rates of STDs and Teen Fertility linked to Public School condom distribution programs. (National Review) Book Review of Alvin Pantinga’s “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism” (By William Lane Craig) Videos: Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s interesting story […]

Satire and Sarcasm and North Carolina

Definition of Satire:

the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. (Google search “Satire”)

Definition of Sarcasm:

the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. (Google search “Sarcasm”)

*the following remark is meant to be taken sarcastically but I predict that many in North Carolina will begrudgingly align with it in coming months because of external pressures:

Wow! with all of this new pressure from so many organizations it is now obvious to me that those who disagree with the moral and sexual revolution are akin to southern racists in the Jim Crow era and should be coerced into obedience and acceptance of the new and correct views of sexuality. How could I have been so blind until now? Thanks to the help of well meaning and principled organizations, I have been convinced and can finally shake off the tired old views of past generations that have impeded social progress. Only now, after these organizations have taken hundreds of millions of dollars from the economy of North Carolina (my state) do I see how foolish and ignorant I was in my views related to bathrooms. Thank you ACC, NBA, and NCAA and the hundreds of other socially relevant groups who are taking an exemplary stand for doing the right thing.


Thought of the Day and Unrelated Articles

Thought of the day:

Memes are good conversation starters…But NOT good arguments.

Unrelated Articles of the day: (you do not need to subscribe to WSJ to read this, just type the title “A Liberal ‘Gets’ Religion” in Google search) (podcast)

Coercion and cultural bias against conservative religious groups?

-U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report-

-New American Bar Association Rules-