Many people find it hard to take seriously as genuine science much of so-called "Feminist Psychology" based as it is on an ideological construction of a mythical "patriarchal" social structure. (Patriarchy is the Feminist equivalent of the Great Golden Frog worshipped by some tribes in the New Guinea mountains.) Of course intellectual relativism smoothes the road for all sorts of political nonsense by using the rhetorical device of regarding all and every "position" as being equally worthy of serious consideration. Try this line of argument as an example. "Oh the position of Newton on planetary motion was that the planets circle the Sun, while another position is that of Ptolemy who argued that the Sun circled the earth." See they are both just arguments, and who can say which should be preferred. Patriarchy sides with Newton, while Feminists side with Marx or something ... So Noam Shpancer, Ph.D., the question is what is the quality of your science? I note you were pathetically quick to launch into quoting Marx ... did you forget about Carlos Castaneda or something or haven't the Feminist Psychologists got around to Casteneda yet?

More Posts