| > Please refrain from accusations of misogyny without substantiating evidence. I wrote them from my perspective. They are my opinions/conclusions. If you have other views, that's fine for me. I am claiming my truth, not a universal truth. > From your links it seems like Testosterone Rex and The Gendered Brain are the books I could use to approach another perspective on this subject? Along with I guess The Essencial Difference as well, in order to contextualize better what they're refuting? Yes, that's the ones. You wrote in a comment above mine: > In general, one can broadly summarise these into saying that, on average (again, we're not talking about individuals, we're talking about populations), men will prefer to work with things while women will prefer to work with people. I say, no, we can not summarize that at all. You mentioned that you read a lot of stuff from Hackernews. Have you had a chance to look at the actual sources? Wikipedia has a great summary, with many sources to back up it's claims: "Baron-Cohen has faced criticism by some for his "empathizing-systemizing theory", which states that humans may be classified on the basis of their scores along two dimensions (empathizing and systemizing); and that females tend to score higher on the empathizing dimension and males tend to score higher on the systemizing dimension. Feminist scientists, including Cordelia Fine, neuroscientist, Gina Rippon, and Lise Eliot have opposed his extreme male brain theory of autism, calling it "neurotrash" and neurosexism.[35][36][37][38] Rippon also argues against using "male" and "female" for describing different types of brains, and that brain types do not correspond to genders.[36][39] A 2009 study led by Baron-Cohen which reported that autistic individuals possessed superior visual acuity has been subject to heavy criticism. The developers of the software he used said that his results were impossible based on the technology used in the study. Additionally, the results of the study could not be replicated in a follow-up study.[40][41][42]" Basically the author you quote, Simon Baron-Cohen, is widely known for his many misrepresentations and un-replicable studies. I guess his success is in spreading sexist psuedoscience, which supports the continuation of a patriarchal status quo, gaining widespread popularity for his unscientific science before it was challenged/discovered to be so. |