Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Man-bashing: science with an agenda

Why weren't women included in this 'study' by psychologists in Knox College in Galesburg, IL? It seems 30 men were "blinded" to giving saliva samples after either disassembling a gun or a game of Mouse Trap. The headline: "In Men, 'Trigger-Happy' May Be a Hormonal Impulse" appeared in the New York Times. I bet a women's epinephrine level (and maybe even testosterone level) would have climbing just as much disassembling a gun versus a game of Mouse Trap. Pity these sexist studies persist. Pity worse the NT Times for publishing this blather.



Anonymous said...

Hey now, you're thinking too small here. If an infinitesimal surge in testosterone is evidence that we should ban guns (which is pretty clearly the subtext here), what about all those not-so-infinitesimal hormonal changes during, say, a woman's period? Does SCIENCE PROVE! that females are inherently unstable?

It'd be nice if politicized studies like this one had to pass the smell test before we're allowed to draw conclusions from them.

Anonymous said...

"Why weren't women included...?" Ha! Ask a hard question sometime, Dr. Wes.

Women weren't included in this study for several reasons, including (a) the Women Are Angels fallacy, a primitive belief that women are too pure to be affected by such things as icky guns; and (b) the If Men Are A, Then Women Are Not-A fallacy, a belief often exhibited by true believers of the "women have it worse" dogma -- for example, a study that suggests men benefit from marriage is interpreted by feminists (of all sexes) as implying that women suffer from marriage. (The fact is that women benefit too, as Maggie Gallagher has documented but facts have never deterred any womanfirster -- of any sex and whether of the feminist or traditionalist persuasion -- from clinging stubbornly to dogma.)

Another example of the A, Not-A fallacy at work in a bit more sophisticated form may be found in a recent column by the traditionalist Mona Charen. One way womanfirsters (of all sexes) hide the bad behavior of women whilst bashing solely men for such behavior is to give one name to women's behavior (one that disguises what is unacceptable when done by men) and another, more direct and disparaging name for the behavior when men do it. In her column, one reads Ms. Charen complain about some men and says they "whine" when they dare complain in America's matriarchy. She freely complains about some men seeking what she dubs "the right to abandom your child" and fails to note that when a woman does such a thing it is called something not the least bit pejorative, something like "placing your child for adoption" and everyone is supposed to believe that the child-abandoning woman is somehow a victim in all this. Err!

(Like others, Ms. Charen wrongly supposes that the analogue for what the men she's bashing want is abortion. Yes, those men she's bashing suppose that too, an illustration of how thoroughly dominated our society is by the feminist stripe of matriarchal thinking. Sheesh -- enough already!)

And in reply to Anonymous (11:43 AM CDT), please recall why that peculiarly female disorder was named PMS, because the name "mad cow disease" was already taken. The New York Times flubbed by publishing that silly man-bashing article because in a back-handed way it undermines hillary rodham rodham's campaign to get Geena Davis' job in 2008.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised they could find enough men for their 'study' that wouldn't wet themselves at the sight of an icky gun.