Letters to the Editor
healthyskeptic
Published Letters: 629 Editor's Choice: 14
-
Norms
[Read the article: ABC's of gender]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]there is a spectrum of behavior ranging from "typically" feminine to "typically" masculine ... there are clusters of men at the masculine end and clusters of women at the feminine end, but there are also quite a few outliers of varying degrees. ... I don't want society to limit me (or other women, or men for that matter) ... -- SMontgomery
I agree with that, and I'm also skeptical of normative arguments that are simply projecting one's own desires onto the world and claiming that's how it should be.
But, any discussion on what values society should have, and judgments on present society, deal with issues of what's "normal" or "natural" and deal with statistics on wages, professions, etc. For example, Flory and Broadsheet contributors frequently advocate for complete gender parity and non-specialization by gender, and use wage and profession statistics to argue there is patriarchal oppression.
It's a valid concern, to a point, but ultimately rests on normative assumptions.
Everybody is speculating about what would be "normal" in a more perfectly fair meritocracy and happy society. And unfortunately, it's a broad human characteristic that these sorts of debates often turn into rhetorical fist fights, rather than enlightened conversations.
Ideally, we'd all be valued for our various contributions to society, people would be free to adopt the roles they feel most natural to without constraints, and for that matter our nature would produce an optimal society.
My belief is that to begin with human nature is imperfect, so it's not a matter necessarily of being more "natural" so much as it's about adapting ourselves, consciously, into a more perfect society. My view, from personal experience and study, is that gender speicalization is a mixed bag, with men and women having patterns of traits that are both good and bad.
And the better we understand our genetic starting point and honestly address gender differentiation, the better we'll set realistic goals and means to achieve them, as well as understand, respect and value specialized roles.
-
setting the record straight
[Read the article: ABC's of gender]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to object to the post by MarijoCook "Science schmience" and that it was starred, and what that says about Salon editors, because it's terribly uninformed, and just flat wrong, right from the beginning.
The most recent review of the science of gender that I have read (written by a feminist, I admit, but a very thorough researcher feminist)
Right there, how can the poster claim to know if it was "through" from such little knowledge of the subject? Single sourcing is always a bad idea, and a partisan source at that.. come on. Red flags?
we are still incredibly ignorant about the many roles played by hormones
We're ignorant in regards to their totality of effects, but that doesn't disregard the vast amount of empirical knowledge we do know about them. for example, it's a fact hormones cause areas of the brain to be sized differently by gender, which are specialized to specific tasks, and it's observable in brain fMRI and autopsy, as well as behavior.
And many studies have shown that when male and female toddlers cannot be distinguished by clothing or hairstyle, observers cannot accurately guess their gender by watching their activity
First off, you can't prove a negative. All that shows is the researcher didn't know what to look for. For one example of a distinguishing trait, out of many, girls make something like 10x more eye contact because the part of their brain specialized to that is much larger than in boys.
The rest of MarijoCook's comment was speculative, gut feeling stuff. It should be represented as such, and not fudged with claims of scientific authority so easily disproved.
-
FAUX News?
[Read the article: Unstable starlets and little-girl voices]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sheila Wellington, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, says that she's noticed more and more female students with childlike voices.
One persons, claims, she's noticed more childlike voices....? Why not just begin the article, somebody told me this, which may or may not be even the slightest bit true...
That's the basis for Flory's latest bout of angst? Salon publishes that? Pathetic.
-
I'm all for irreverence...
[Read the article: Your closet's so small ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But, that was designed by ad executives and seems a better description would be "ingratiating" which is tacky.
-
Need I say it?
[Read the article: Lose weight! Feel great! Well, maybe not]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why don't they just exercise and develop better eating habits? Cravings do change with exercise and better eating.
And why do some people have to pander to the overweight and pretend America's beauty standards are unnaturally skinny. Where are these anorexic models and movie stars? All the models and stars and such I see are just.... healthy.
They're only "abnormally thin" because 2/3 of Americans are overweight, 1/3 are obese. They don't exercise enough, and thier cardio/vascular systems are in terrible health. All the top killers in America, by annual statistics, are diet/obesity related. "Normal" weight in America, is unhealthy.