I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal called Why Aren’t There More Women in Science and Technology? by developmental psychologist and social science writer, Susan Pinker. It cites the results of a study published last month in the journal Psychological Science which analyzes data from the world’s largest educational survey. The article immediately calls […]
Peggy Noonan is former presidential speechwriter and current columnist and author wrote a recent article called The Parkland Massacre and the Air We Breathe. Noonan perceptively identifies the degradation of our society starting with the dissolution of the family as well as cultural inputs which are negatively impacting all of us.
Near the end of her article she proposes a compromise in public policy goals between Republicans and Democrats when she says,
The idea: Trade banning assault weapons for banning late-term abortion. Make illegal a killing machine and a killing procedure.
In both cases the lives of children would be saved.
Wouldn’t this clean some of the air? Wouldn’t we all breathe a little easier?
It is a provocative and innovative proposal that is likely meant to call both the Republican’s and Democrat’s bluff rather than be taken seriously as a piece of legislation. However, I can see this type of idea being more popular among voters as the debate on guns moves forward.
Noonan clearly sees that each group wants the opposition’s purported rights eradicated on moral grounds. However, her case is a bit too simplistic in that the moral analogy of banning a gun versus banning the killing of an unborn child are not, in my opinion, equally weighted. The analogy further slips when comparing the two in light of the Constitution whereas one right is explicit and pervasive since the founding and the other is interpreted as implied and added late. However, I see the merit in offering her argument as an olive branch in hopes of some change.
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.
Expressing one’s opinion about life, politics, religion etc… is widely accepted in today’s culture. That is, unless your view is critical of or dissents against the dogma presented in the corporate world, media, and entertainment. I can speak from personal experience (as well as present statistical evidence HERE, HERE, and HERE) that there is an extreme bias towards […]