> I simply don't have the space on a list posting to provide it! Other
While this might be true, it certainly sounds like side-stepping.
> than to say that there has been a sea change since 1985 in the areas
> of evolutionary psychology, sociology, psychology, gender studies,
> etc. based on the realization that a lot of the prevailing paradigms
> were skewed to the biases of the male researchers. This isn't to
Maybe these "sciences" weren't that scientific, after all. Strong
operator signature is a sign of sloppy experimentation, if not dire fraud.
Good science is operator-neutral, which should be provable in a
double-blind.
> completely indict the male researchers--it's an acknowledgment that a
> balanced perspective was missing. A lot of reevaluation is taking place,
> work that was formerly pushed aside is being reexamined, new evidence
> and new theories are emerging.
I haven't noticed that, but then, I have not looked. Does anybody
knowledgeable second Kathryn's observations?
> Anyhow, we are transhumanists! Are we not in the business of
> overcoming human limitations? Why cling to these worn, outdated and
While this is certainly desirable, I thought we were describing the
status quo. Afaik, observations do not speak pro nonexistance of gender
differences.
ciao,
'gene
> limiting roles? Why retell the same story over and over?
>
> Sin,
>
> Kathryn Aegis