Just as the war with the Chinese has been lost without one angry shot in response, so too has the gender war between the sexes.
The reason is obviously all too clearly observed in this authors harping article.

“Boys are victims, girls are not”.

Isn’t this the name of the game?

One of the better products from NY though, is Donald Trump.
He was actually active with this nonsense, but the contest was scorched dishonesty by the same crowd of worthless morons, parading around rendering useless and wasted, the precious resources of education, and all in the wrong hands.

Dan

This topic almost as interesting as watching paint dry?

However, on a positive note, it allows me to correct the (gone mad) Grammarly auto-correct on the other thread. Dung beetles are not dung battles!
Alan B.

This article is another illustration of a persistent and deep problem with the social sciences and humanities: the “is/ought” problem.

In the natural sciences the world is studied as it is. For example, certain molecules or atoms react with one another, not because they ought to react, but because they do. One cannot say that certain molecules or atoms ought to react. One does not make value judgements about natural phenomena. If there is a question about the way phenomena ought to be, it can be confirmed or refuted by experimentation or observation (assuming the experimenter or observer are honest).

For some reason, in the social sciences and humanities, “is” and “ought” are confused. A researcher in the social sciences or humanities starts with a hypothesis and then finds evidence to confirm that hypothesis. This goes undetected or is regarded as acceptable practice in the social sciences and humanities. For example, a social science researcher may ask the question, “Why are girls less attracted to study and work in nuclear physics than boys.” The reasons could be: the intellectual nature of the subject does not appeal to girls, active discrimination against girls (if evidenced), danger to the female reproductive system, few opportunities for part-time work, etc. The social scientist would then go on to say that this situation (fewer girls in nuclear physics) ought not to exist and ought to be changed.

Someone with the mentality of a natural scientist would state the reasons and not make any comment about the what the situation ought to be. The natural scientist may even change the question to: “Is there a difference in the attractiveness for nuclear physics between boys and girls?”

The same argument goes for differences between males and females in general. Are there differences? If so, why do they exist? Do these differences exist because they are beneficial to the society in which these differences exist (division of labour is considered beneficial by economists)? Answering questions in this manner makes social science and humanities research less prone to saying what ought to be.

Well said, Dan!
Alan B.

Speaking of evolution, particularly as it applies to human beings, is anyone familiar with the 1997 movie Beavis and Butthead Do America, a film in which two sub-adolescent emotional retards trash everything that they come across. Their "diet" consists solely of junk "food".

Well the Donald or the Golden Golem of "Greatness" is a perfect living example of the "culture" depicted in that movie. Such is the level of evolutionary development at which tens of millions of dreadfully sane Americans are at.

Furthermore the people always get the politicians that they "deserve" or invoke.

Beavis and Butthead rules OK!

Speaking of evolution again why not check out two new books:
1. Our Moment of Choice Evolutionary Visions and Hope For the Future by Robert Atkinson
2. Atlas Hugged Autobiography of John Galt III by David Sloan Wilson which is a critique of the benighted "philosophy" and its negative cultural manifestations of Ayn Rand.

Both of these books are featured on this website http://www.thisviewoflife.com

The "philosophy" and culture promoted by Lionel Tiger along with Robert Ardrey fits entirely with the benighted world-view promoted by Ayn Rand.