This article is going to rub lots of people the wrong way, I suspect, but it's level headed, well reasoned and well written. Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly:
> Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class.
I think labeling or delineating women as 'vulnerable or marginalised' and ignoring their unique qualities and idiosyncrasies is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily have both, but that's beside my point here)
I legitimately didn't realise what the tone or conclusion of the article were going to be when I first started reasoning, because it does a good job of presenting scientific research without any inherent judgements. The other thing this article achieves that the cited manifesto failed to achieve was not to necessarily provide judgement, criticism or suggestions around 'what should be done about problem xyz'. It presents some facts, presents some opinions, and then (thankfully) doesn't decide to rip the hard work of well intentioned people to shreds. And for that, I think this should be commended.
> Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class.
I think labeling or delineating women as 'vulnerable or marginalised' and ignoring their unique qualities and idiosyncrasies is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily have both, but that's beside my point here)
I legitimately didn't realise what the tone or conclusion of the article were going to be when I first started reasoning, because it does a good job of presenting scientific research without any inherent judgements. The other thing this article achieves that the cited manifesto failed to achieve was not to necessarily provide judgement, criticism or suggestions around 'what should be done about problem xyz'. It presents some facts, presents some opinions, and then (thankfully) doesn't decide to rip the hard work of well intentioned people to shreds. And for that, I think this should be commended.