It seems like your position on ev-psych is predicated on the idea that there are in fact no moral differences between men and women to be found in (true) ev-psych research. If there were, then gender inequality (in whatever direction) would be fully justified. I take it you’re not waiting around to see what natural science discovers about possible moral differences between men and women. If that’s right, you may be concluding a priori that natural sciences can’t discover such moral differences.
Which is a reasonable enough position. But then shouldn’t the work of feminism be to argue for this a priori claim directly, rather than attacking naturalistic approaches which are, in the end, harmless?
If that’s right, you may be concluding a priori that natural sciences can’t discover such moral differences.
Not a priori. There’s lots of history that shows gender roles have been very different in different places and times. Given that background, it seems awfully unlikely that the results of a difficult to test field tend to show that the current gender roles are more compatible with human biology that some other gender roles.
That said, if well-grounded research shows additionally morally relevant differences between men and women, then society should take those differences into account. In fact, morally relevant differences between men and women are readily apparent (e.g. pregnancy). It’s just not clear what those differences imply about how society must be structured.
I don’t trust the social process of Science (as EY describes in the Coming of Age sequence, for reference) to reliably produce truth about gender differences. As it has throughout history, I expect it to parrot the dominant social order.
(I don’t really understand what you mean by moral differences, but I don’t think it’s terribly relevant to my response.)
It seems like your position on ev-psych is predicated on the idea that there are in fact no moral differences between men and women to be found in (true) ev-psych research. If there were, then gender inequality (in whatever direction) would be fully justified. I take it you’re not waiting around to see what natural science discovers about possible moral differences between men and women. If that’s right, you may be concluding a priori that natural sciences can’t discover such moral differences.
Which is a reasonable enough position. But then shouldn’t the work of feminism be to argue for this a priori claim directly, rather than attacking naturalistic approaches which are, in the end, harmless?
Not a priori. There’s lots of history that shows gender roles have been very different in different places and times. Given that background, it seems awfully unlikely that the results of a difficult to test field tend to show that the current gender roles are more compatible with human biology that some other gender roles.
That said, if well-grounded research shows additionally morally relevant differences between men and women, then society should take those differences into account. In fact, morally relevant differences between men and women are readily apparent (e.g. pregnancy). It’s just not clear what those differences imply about how society must be structured.
I don’t trust the social process of Science (as EY describes in the Coming of Age sequence, for reference) to reliably produce truth about gender differences. As it has throughout history, I expect it to parrot the dominant social order.
(I don’t really understand what you mean by moral differences, but I don’t think it’s terribly relevant to my response.)