September 2, 2016

Watch out for scientific studies that read the evidence to support the belief that what is true of the male is superior.

Says the Vatican, saying something that's the reverse of something I've said so often other people have taken to calling it the "Althouse Rule."

Here I am, back in 2005:
I've said it before, and I must repeat, the rule is: If you do scientific research into the differences between men and women, you must portray whatever you find to be true of women as superior. And when you read reports about scientific research into the differences between men and women, use the hypothesis that the scientists are following that rule. It makes reading the reports quite humorous.
Here's the above-linked article about a piece called "History of Biological Difference" in L'Osservatore Romano:
Be cautious about scientific data that offer to be the sole basis and single explanation for the differences between men and women, the Vatican newspaper said. Different eras have produced different scientific conclusions about sex differences, it said, in part because assumptions were built on the knowledge available at the time.

But past scientific views were also inspired by the particular social concepts in force and were "marked, in general, by a strong 'male-centric' ideological slant, aimed at scientifically establishing female inferiority," the newspaper article said....

The article presented a rundown of different findings, spanning from the 1800s to present day, by scientists in explaining why men and women are different....

Biological views of the difference between the sexes, therefore, "have changed over time, according to the theories and dominant ideologies in each historical context, and the interests of medical research," it said.
Articulating what I might comically call The Reverse Althouse Rule, the Vatican is not disagreeing with what I've been saying. I've been writing about media reports in present-day America, where the bias is toward framing the scientific news as evidence of female superiority. But in times and places where people want to present and promote an ideology of male superiority, one ought to expect the same process to yield science that supposedly finds what people want to find.

I said that back in 2005:
To test my theory about whether scientists are following my rule, try rewriting their conclusions as if they were following the opposite rule. That is, take the same basic data, and write their statements as if they were leaning exactly as much toward portraying what is true of the male as superior.

I remember the days when people would routinely and openly characterize whatever was true of the male as superior, and I'm glad those days are over (at least in the U.S.)....

59 comments:

David Begley said...

The Pope needs to stay in his own lane. Yesterday he wrote that global warming was partially the reason for the refugee crisis. The refugee crisis was caused by Assad, ISIS and the failed policies of the Obama-Clinton Administration.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

So regarding gender, get this:

My husband's company provides a specific service to medium and large corporations. They (and competitors) are in early contract talks with a particular old, gargantuan company that you guys would all recognize. Old Gargantuan Company put it out on the table that they will not even consider bids from any firm whose roster is not 50% women. I was astonished, on so many levels. What a completely shit idea that does not reflect the reality of voluntary workplace participation, invites poor quality work and will result in absurd game-playing to meet the requirement. Some workers will get moved on paper to a different subsidiary to win the business, and then they will contract out the actual work to other subsidiaries who hire people who can get the job done, not people who have innies over outties.

The world's gone crazy.

rhhardin said...

The pope is asking report writers to shade the results towards women.

Make the little dears feel better.

David Begley said...

I should add that all of my education was at Catholic and Jesuit schools. Very, very disappointed with the Pope.

rhhardin said...

The reverse cowgirl rule of female superiority.

rhhardin said...

You'd think the Pope would support the missionary rule of male superiority.

rhhardin said...

What about people who haven't done studies but just notice things.

rhhardin said...

Erving Goffman has a picture book "Gender Advertisements" that was certainly a scholarly study, but didn't do anything but notice.

If Althouse can find a used copy she might like it.

rehajm said...

Scientific Hypothesis: Celibacy makes men stupid.

Luke Lea said...

Bending over backwards is another name for it.

MadisonMan said...

Laying the groundwork for female priests.

You have a study that shows male priests are superior!? Well, his Holy Father says be suspicious of it.

Anglelyne said...

Francis the Talking Pope airing his deep thoughts again?

Excuse the OT digression, but, hey Francis, as long as we're talking about shifting viewpoints underpinned by contemporary biases, allow me to FTFY by applying your analysis of sex roles to your beliefs about peoples and nations...

But [sociological] views [are] also inspired by the particular social concepts in force and are "marked, in general, by a strong ['anti-Western'] ideological slant, aimed at [morally] establishing ['Western guilt']" the newspaper article said....

...maybe something you ought to take to heart and think about, what with you're being on record and all about how awful it is that non-European peoples should have their cultures and ways of life threatened, eroded and destroyed, while insisting on the moral necessity of European peoples allowing just that to happen to themselves.

pdug said...

It strikes me that this is a very nihilistic view of scientific research.

Doesn't science often improve methodology?

If we're STILL getting research that demonstrates male superiority in some area (upper body strength?) i think its fair to take it seriously and not chalk it up to a culture of scientism

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I kind of envy the man who can get off on the thought that his maleness makes him special.

Rick said...

Articulating what I might comically call The Reverse Althouse Rule, the Vatican is not disagreeing with what I've been saying.

Right, he's reinforcing The Althouse Rule.

Freder Frederson said...

Yesterday he wrote that global warming was partially the reason for the refugee crisis.

Sheesh, so he agrees with the U.S. Department of Defense.

Rick said...

I remember the days when people would routinely and openly characterize whatever was true of the male as superior, and I'm glad those days are over (at least in the U.S.)....

These days aren't over. This is the foundation for male privilege criticisms. To privilege warriors every gender difference is beneficial to men thus requiring governmental and societal remediation in favor of women.

traditionalguy said...

Is Exceptionalism back?

Our old tradition was that the woman is the glory of the man. That says women are always exceptional and should wear long hair, "because of the angels," meaning they are so attractive, that angels want them.

Elizabeth Taylor was proof of that theory.

But since science is paid to find what we want found they find little that is gold but tons and tons of irons pyrite they sell to the fools as gold.

chrisnavin.com said...

Perhaps some of the ideas that make Argentina politically a mess, economically a basket-case, and keep reminding the rest of the world of said messes every 15 years or so, have travelled with the Pope into Vatican City.

Perhaps....

This will be touched-on in my upcoming airport thriller: Papal Fire II-The Bergoglio Imbroglio

Todd Galle said...

Well, I suppose I will admit my wife is far better than me at certain tasks, finances in particular. I haven't written a check or paid a bill online in several years and have never balanced a check book in my life. We both understood early on that if I were to hold the money responsibilities, we'd end up in a cardboard box under the underpass. The yard, painting, plumbing, etc. is my bailiwick, and I'm fine with that.

Ann Althouse said...

"Left Bank of the Charles said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator."

I didn't do that and Meade doesn't think he did that, but he might have done it accidentally.

Please repost.

No one here intended to remove anything.

Bruce Hayden said...

@MM - before female priests, maybe allowing Roman Catholic priests to marry. This is one of those RC Sacred Traditions that appears to outsiders to run mostly contrary to the scriptures. Apparently implemented in order to cut down on nepotism, but not picked up by much of the rest of Christianity. And maybe part of why that church has faced so many homosexual priests engaging in pediphilia. It arguably dates from an older time, when the known world was much smaller, and the Roman Church was closely entwined into the ruling of, esp, Southern Europe. and, yes, arguably made possible by the fall of the western Roman Empire. The eastern Roman Empire lasted most of the next millennium, and so the eastern church never grew to such temporal power, needing this sort of remedy.

chrisnavin.com said...

Also, 80% of Pope-Soap-On-A-Rope-For-Hope goes to poor, unwashed kids.

The front office uses the rest to have the true-believers within the organization fight the true-believers in government...

'Don't be a dope!'

JPS said...

Freder Frederson:

"Sheesh, so he agrees with the U.S. Department of Defense."

Do you consistently assume the DoD is right, or only when they bolster liberal policy positions?

Global warming is partially the reason for the refugee crisis. That's some sound science right there. Here's a list of other things to which global warming has been plausibly linked:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/zk2u36s

Peter said...

"Gargantuan Company put it out on the table that they will not even consider bids from any firm whose roster is not 50% women."

When comes President Hillary Clinton, will DoE insist on Title IX proportionality tests in STEM fields where women are well under 50% (while ignoring proportionality in fields such as education and nursing)?

Paddy O said...

Bruce, it certainly didn't cut down on nepotism, either.

Caroline Walker said...

There's no "there" there, with respect to that article. I suspect the Vatican is looking for a way to "enter into dialogue" with gender ideologists, which the pope has, for a change, unambiguously denounced. For my money the most luminous catechisis on sex difference is pope john Paul ii 's Theology of the body, in which he martials his considerable power as a philosopher to paint a picture that we may see through God's eyes, how the bodies of male and female fit together in a logic and with a purpose that reflects the mind of God. All systems of the body are autonomous with the exception of the reproductive system, which requires the contribution of the other in order to create new life. Men and women have different attributes and gifts ordered to human flourishing. It's only we moderns who want to bend nature to suit our purposes who recast the sexes as a battle for superiority. In catholic theology, the body and soul journey together ...they are not set in opposition to one another. The body is sacramental, in that it is a visible sign of invisible realities, an aid for us to grasp the mind of God. Men are by nature extrinsic; women, immanent. In Catholic theology, the priesthood is reserved for men not only because of the significance of Christ's manhood, but because of Old Testament tradition in which only men may offer sacrifice. Women can preach, minister, but only men can offer sacrifice. This is tied to the nature of masculinity...a husband is called to sacrifice himself for his wife. Women are life bearers. Only recently has this lofty purpose taken on the cast inferiority.
Now we seem to inhabit a universe of no natural laws or restrictions, and what do we find, women, by and large, imitating the worst expressions of masculinity in the name of equality. (Cf any Melissa McCarthy comedy.) Or the Huma-Weiner power couple, in which stay at home dad is so emasculated he needs to act out. Ours is a disordered concept of equality, in which it is assumed that men and women are interchangeable and indistinguishable. This is a delusion, and the family is paying the price.

David Begley said...

JPS

Don't be silly. As I wrote above, "The refugee crisis was caused by Assad, ISIS and the failed policies of the Obama-Clinton Administration."

Would people be leaving Syria if it was just hot? It is always hot in Syria.

Bruce Hayden said...

There is no real Male Privilege any more. Rather, there is a continuing attempt by women to appropriate the fruits of male labor for the benefit of women. This has always been the case to some extent, but in the past, women traded paternity and sexual access for those fruits of male labor. The feminists want to skip that part, and go straight fo men supporting wonen in the style they would like to be supported in, with nothing in return. That is, of course, very much of what welfare is about, taxing males (who pay a large majority of (esp income) taxes) to support females they aren't having sex with and the children of other males (who, in Black communities today, tend to be in prison or dead).

Today, men don't earn more money, and pay a large majority of income taxes, because of male privilege, but because they work harder, for longer hours, for more years, in often much more dangerous jobs. Women can go (and increasingly are going) into engineering, where they can actually contribute to society, by making our lives easier. And those women do just fine. But many women choose to do such things as women's studies where they can learn to properly whine about not getting paid very much for their whining (because, if anything, they are providing negative value to society).

Bruce Hayden said...

What Freder seems to forget her is that the Pentagon is run at the top by Obama appointees, and under them are generals and admirals that were promoted to their current position by Obama. He seems to think that the department somehow talks for itself. It doesn't. It speaks with Obama's voice. Blind survey of the lower grade officers and enlisted ranks would likely find a lot of scorn and ridicule for a lot of the things Implemented under Obama's watch, including alleged anthropogenic global warming.

Fernandinande said...

"Vatican City State has a minuscule female population."

Oso Negro said...

One of our amazing cultural conceits is our obsession with erasing gender. The women's movement pushed for the idea that women are capable of anything that does not require a vagina. The homosexual movement sought to fluidize gender to facilitate recruiting and mainstream acceptance. The trans-sexual hysteria wants us to believe that anyone deserves to be anyone. Eventually there will be a cruel regression to the mean.

JPS said...

David Begley,

Well, I was being silly on purpose. "Global warming is partially the reason for the refugee crisis" was me restating a premise I find absurd, for exactly the reasons you give. "That's some sound science right there" was my comment on it. A theory that predicts, or better say can be retrofitted to explain, everything in the link I provided is a theory that could use some refining.

damikesc said...

The Catholic Church is led by a damned idiot. Why doesn't he step down and let a woman be Pope?

wholelottasplainin' said...

rhhardin said...
Erving Goffman has a picture book "Gender Advertisements" that was certainly a scholarly study, but didn't do anything but notice.

If Althouse can find a used copy she might like it.

***************

There are plenty available, cheap, at www.abebooks.com.

MikeR said...

"I remember the days when people would routinely and openly characterize whatever was true of the male as superior, and I'm glad those days are over (at least in the U.S.)...." Because now they routinely and openly characterize whatever is true of the female as superior, and that's much better?

Paul Snively said...

rehajm: Scientific Hypothesis: Celibacy makes men stupid.

Counterhypothesis: stupid men don't get laid.

David Begley said...

JPS

Sorry I misunderstood.

You can't believe the grief I have received on a Creighton basketball board (off topic section) re CAGW.

The real eye opener for me was when NASA's James Hansen spoke at Creighton this Spring. I wrote about it at Powerline. College kids really getting the full treatment and in all classes. A theology prof introduced Hansen. I thought he was introducing a saint. Glowing doesn't begin to do his intro justice.

wholelottasplainin' said...


"Global warming is partially the reason for the refugee crisis. That's some sound science right there."

***************************

What unmitigated bullshit. Did you forget to type /sarc at the end?

Here's the site: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-change-blame-list/

It MOCKS the idea that global warming has been blamed for everything. Give it a look.

Darrell said...

So when is Pope Karl going to appoint his female successor?

JPS said...

wholelottasplainin',

"Did you forget to type /sarc at the end?"

No. I thought it was obvious enough, but I was wrong. Even after I explained myself to David Begley, here you come with your "What unmitigated bullshit."

I am quite aware of the contents of the link I posted. That's why I posted it. But thanks for checking.

JPS said...

David Begley,

No need to be sorry! And I can well believe the grief. I know what awaits anyone who dissents fractionally from climate orthodoxy in certain circles. Incidentally I went once to a scientific conference on chemistry and energy, and the then-hit "An Inconvenient Truth" was being screened in one of the breaks. I raised some eyebrows by passing on it.

damikesc said...

The pope is asking report writers to shade the results towards women.

Make the little dears feel better.


What I DON'T get it why so many women are on board with being patronized.

I also don't get why blacks are on board with it either.

Doesn't science often improve methodology?

It did once. Now, it is there solely to back up the biases of the "scientist"

Sheesh, so he agrees with the U.S. Department of Defense.

An Obama administration office is populated by fucking morons? I'm SHOCKED!!

David Begley said...

JPS

I constantly get the "97% of scientists agree" appeal to authority fallacy. PhD in chemistry from Cal wants to throttle me. At least the Bluejays should be improved this year.

campy said...

We must coddle that fragile female ego.

Marc Puckett said...

In the first place, I don't dispute AA's reading of the CNS wire service article in the Catholic Register (Canada). The monthly section of l'Osservatore Romano devoted to 'women's issues' [the September number is here] is newspaper articles, however. It's not filled with papal allocutions, papal bulls, or texts of canon law, gosh; it's written by journalists (granted, Catholic journalists, generally). The daily texts are of quite variable quality, ranging from serious reportage or commentary to fluff, although ordinarily the fluff is at least about serious subjects. I guess that while I don't expect AA to be particularly aware of Catholic nonsense, I wanted to register my dismay at Catholic commenters here who seem to think that Lucetta Scarafia is secretly the Pope.

Joe said...

Take out NOAA's adjustments of the temperature records and global warming since 1895 becomes absurdly small. However, 1895 was a remarkably cold year, so if you start the record at 1896, there is NO global warming.

Regardless, to even suggest global warming has anything to do with Syria is bonkers and even dangerous, since it then ignores, or at least trivializes, what is really happening over there. (Which is why, of course, the global warming nonsense is used--when out of the truth, start lying.)

Michael in ArchDen said...

To reinforce what Marc has said...

While l'Osservatore is the "official" newspaper of Vatican City, it is NOT part of the magisterium, and nothing in its pages should be read as teachings of the Church.

JPS said...

David Begley,

About that 97% statistic: I know there are several sleights of hand that go into it, but I wanted to share this from commenter AtlantaDude on Scott Adams' blog, before the comments were temporarily closed. I thought it was quite good so I saved it.

"In reality, the scientific question is more about where you put the line in the cascading list below:

1. CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and contributes to warming
2. Projected CO2 increases can cause roughly 1 degree Celsius of warming
3. The warming we have seen to date is primarily due to CO2
4. Positive feedback factors aside from CO2 will multiply the warming by 3x to 6x
5. The warming caused by the feedback cycles will lead to a catastrophe
[...]
Guess what - the 97% of scientists consensus that we keep hearing about pertains to #1 and #2. Once you get to #3 the consensus gets a little shakier, and the percentage of scientists signing up for #4 and #5 is way, way smaller....The warming crowd and their political allies want to keep the argument as the simple yes / no, which implies that you either buy all 5 or you are a 'moron' who doesn't even believe #1 or #2."

CStanley said...

Thank you, Caroline Walker and Mark Puckett. Caroline, that was the best summary of the Theology of the Body that I've read to date.

David Begley said...

JPS

Way too complicated. The buzz words just thrown out. And, of course, these are all projections and past projections have been wrong.

Crimso said...

Not to take away from your pride in having a rule, but I find Althouse's Law (as I've called it) to be far more useful: "Better than nothing is a high standard." Plus, I think a law is better than a mere rule.

jaed said...

Says the Vatican [...] L'Osservatore Romano

Althouse! L'Osservatore Romano is not the Vatican, much less the Pope. It's like saying that the federal government says X (or worse, that the president says X), and then pointing at a WaPo editorial.

Tsk.

JimB said...

Well, Francis is an outstanding example of why male Popes aren't always a winner.

Purpleslog said...

I can understand there may be theological grounds for a man-only priesthood...except that the Church did ordain a small number of women in the latter part of the last century. I can understand there may be theological grounds for unmarried-only make priests...except the church currently allows married male priests under certain circumstance.

The first step, should be to allow women to be Permament Deacons (Deaconesses).

https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/milwaukee-news-item-1-married-catholic-priests/

TBlakely said...

When our civilization falls (as they all do) we'll see how far 'girrrl' power goes.

Carl Grahn said...

The papacy has been wrong on scientific subjects since the dark ages. It's no different now.

TM Lutas said...

The stuff the Vatican's newspaper appears to be going after is *biological determinism*. In case people don't know, biological determinism and Catholicism (traditional and hippy dippy are in agreement here) do not mix. The argument they are prepping for is so far out of the Overton Window in the US at present that it's virtually undiscussable. It's not the Althouse rule though.

Don M said...

In the US, women live on average, 7 years longer than men. That is quite some oppression the men have going.