The "Logic" of Professional Psychologists 

Lenn, I dont understand how u can be so racist and sexist. All Tim is saying is that "pros" dont understand that people are mental, rather than biological, and thats true irrefutably. I once got sent to a pro who totally didnt think I had a mental life. He just said I was being unreasonable, as if "reason" is what matters in a relationships. What about my mental feelings, which are logically equal to a womans? And to say that african-american's have more Melon is proof that your racist. Liking melons is a stereotype. I once new an African American who wont eat melons because of allurgies. So logically there is no difference between races, just like its false that males and females are unequal because of their biological differences, like u obviously think. Learn to read so you can understand facts clearly.

I hate making mistakes--not 'invalid,' 'unsound.'

F***.  I made the mistake of reading the entirety of your response.  Seriously, I get that you are self-educated, and there is reason for pride there, but there is also reason for great humility.

First, no "pro" denies the reality of mental states.  Even the most reductionistic materialists talk about supervenience.

Second, do NOT use the term 'illogical'.  You have NO idea how to use that term.  The term you are looking for is 'invalid,' but unless you can point to gaps in my reasoning that exist on a purely mathematical level, 'illogical' doesn't work.  But again, I get why you use that term--you are a splendid example of the postmodern critique of language.  Foucault is rolling in his grave.

Third, I do not want to KNOW, nor be NEAR, nor breathe the same AIR as ANY African American who takes exception to the observation that there are indeed genetic, biological differences between myself and them.  Such a person would be colossaly stupid.  However, I would also not want to KNOW, nor be NEAR, nor breathe the same AIR as ANY caucasian who took those biological differences as justification for racism.

Fourth, you continually project your own biases, accusing me of defending power-inequities when I have said NO SUCH THING, which demonstrates that you are one sick puppy in that your own issues make you incapable of interacting with others on this topic.  I do suggest you spend time with a therapist.  You may think they're illogical, but damn sir.

My last question to you is why do you continue this when you are so obviously outclassed intellectually?  I have the humility to treat those more intelligent than me with respect.  Why is it you do not have the same?

If you wish to make a true contribution to humanity, drop your hubris, get a f***ing degree so you KNOW what your "opposition" is saying, and then try again.  It's not a guarantee, but it may help.

God, you are a reductionistic ass. 

Let me state what I have clearly said from the beginning in terms you can grasp--boys not better, girls not worse.

 

You, however, are windbag.  And unintelligent.  A pedagogue in the worst way. 

 

But I bet you feel great about yourself.  Ta-ta.  I am truly done with you.

Okay Lenn
Let me make it even easier on you, since you obviously skirted the question I asked before.
Do you believe that one should be superior, and one inferior in a relationship?  (that is it, I'm not asking anything else, please just answer that one very, very, very simple question).  
And Dactyl, your response is completely understandable.  We have been told for a hundred years that men and women are biologically different, which is why you commented that we are different in the way we are built.  You only need to understand that the biological approach completely dismisses the mental approach to relationships.  Unfortunately the pros do not believe we have mental lives, which is why Lenn refuses to address the mental relationship between couples that I am trying to get him to discuss.  In fact, not only do the pros not believe we have mental lives, they do not believe that the mind is capable of thinking, which is why Lenn's discussion becomes completely illogical.  
We only need to see how he answers the question of mental equality between a man and a woman or continues to rationalize the superiority of one.  He even had the balls to mention the biological difference between caucasians and negroes, something any African American would take exception to.

As a woman posting here, I'm going to say- Lenn has hot a homerun!

Men and women are different.  We are different in the way be are built and the way we think.  So, physically and mentally- we are different.  We were made that way to fit together- as a dear friend has said- "Like pieces of a puzzle." 

A woman is not a physically strong as a man.  It's a biological fact.  Even if a woman does strength training, she won't develop muscles to the extent a man will.  Does this make women inferior?  No, it makes us women! 

Look at the careers we each choose to take.  Women tend to take the more nurturing jobs- teaching, nursing...  where men tend to take the more problem solving types- doctors, engineers, mechanics.  I'm not saying that each can't be good in the other types of jobs, but those are more the exceptions then the rules.  These roles didn't come along because men are superior, they came along because that's how it works best. 

We each have our strengths and weaknesses.  Our goal should be to find those who can take those and complement them.

...oh yeah, and this one: "Your [sic[ ultimate point, which I agree with, is that IF there are differences, they do not justify one class of entities ruling over the other in ANY manner."

God dammit guy, your pompous attitude is the problem.  Try listening to people rather than lecturing them.  FFS.  I'm done with this.

Ok Tim, how 'bout I make this reeeaaalllly easy for you--I'm tossing you a big, round rubber ball here: what inference can you draw from the following statments?

Second, neither I nor your commenter brought up the matter of 'superiority' or 'inferiority.'"

"...you and I agree that that does NOT necessitate value judgments about 'superiority'."

"...THEN biology itself necessitates patriarchy.  This is clearly absurd..."

"To make it explicit, my issue is NOT with your position on the relationship between men and women."

Seriously, please knock this one out of the park and answer your own damned question.  And do humanity a favor and stop writing--you don't do any of us any favors by injecting your muddled thinking and condescention into the marketplace of ideas.

Okay Lenn
Let me make it easy on you.  Are you saying that someone in the relationship should be superior, and one inferior, or should each be viewed equally?
And to clarify one point, patriarchy is defined as the man being in charge.  And prejudices are used to control the situation.  
Thanks for your lively discussion.
Tim

To make it explicit, my issue is NOT with your position on the relationship between men and women, but rather with how you treat others when your statements are far from logical or unambiguous.  That includes the author of the condemned book, your commenter, and now me.

Sixth, your assumption that recognizing differences is a problem is completedly vapid.  The problem is NOT in the recognition (or description) of those differences, but in using those differences to justify unjust inequities.  The fact that you cannot distinguish between the two acts--between recognizing differences and justifying inequity--shows how idealogical you are.

Here's me tackling your "historical evidence."  Guess what--there is a difference between caucasians and negros.  The most notable difference is in levels of melanin, though there are also structural and micro-biological differences as well.  Refusing to say that makes one a fool; assuming that justifies social inequities also makes one a fool.

My ultimate point is that you have some axe to grind that makes you incapable of approaching this topic objectively, so the charge of "illogic" sounds like a joke coming from your lips.

 

You project your own assumptions onto others.  It makes it almost impossible for you to engage in a real discussion.  For instance, this: And then you state that I am trying to “arguethat one is superior”.  Where did I state that?  Did you notice the quotation marks, the brackets that indicated I was working with a quote, the indexical "me"?  Nope.  Again, why is that?  Why is it that you so flagrantly miss what others are saying?  (And there are amply examples of that throughout.)

 

So, no, the ultimate point of this discussion is not what you pointed out--rather, it is that you project your own fears and biases onto others.

Tim, seriously--I will respond only to your first response, because that is the crux of the matter.

First, I write very precisely--you'll note the conditional "if" in my statment about biology; that means something.  I don't know how to say it more clearly than I've already done. 

Second, neither I nor your commenter brought up the matter of "superiority" or "inferiority."  That's all your contribution.  That's your way of winning--not on the merits of your thought, but by making charged accusations.  Look again at what the commenter said--he TRIED to suck the issue of the emotional charge and you would have none of it (because that is what you capitalize on).  He tried to get you to do what you have you needed to do, which was define "equality."  He, not you, was the one being logical by shedding the undo influence of connotation. 

Third, stop using the term 'equality.'  There is NO accepted definition of the term in the English language that comes close to meaning "balance."  A Calder mobile is in balance--none of its compositional elements are equal; the equality is in invisible forces, meaning there is a likeness of degree between the two sides with respect to force-vectors.

Fourth, look at the phenomenological point I made.  I explicity stated that phenomenology justifes separating the sexes as classes of entities, but it says nothing about whether that separation justifies an inequality in power.

-con't-

Uh, to summarize, I think you should consider an edit before posting articles that call other people ridiculous. Forget whether your article was logical; it was graceless.

So to summarize, are you saying that equal can mean identical, men and women are clearly not identical, thereby equality between men and women is not possible, the ultimate point in this discussion?

Sorry, this got cut off:

And then youcomment about my point with Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, that I am ‘jump[ing]down someone’s throat for arguing that there are very real differences’, whichmust mean that I don’t get that there are differences.  To clarify, the basic concept of this book isthat men and women are different and…well, that’s about as deep as itgets.  Again, describing a problem doesnothing to solve it, something again the Psychology world has yet toembrace.  But then you do state that thisdoes not justify one ruling over the other. Are you now saying you don’t believe in the notion of patriarchy?  

And then youstate that we are all in agreement, it is absurd to equate equality withidentity.  How sweet.  Boy this paragraph is utterly confusing. Weall agree, yet I must ‘take issue with what [you both] wrote’, when you clearlystate at the beginning of this discussion that equal can mean identical, againa point I clarified at the very beginning of my discussion.  But then you state that I have to assume youare reasoning ‘that on non-identical equality (whatever that means) women areinferior’.  So again, are you trying tostate that women are inferior or not? 

 

And tocorrect your point on my equivocation, equality and balance are one and thesame. 

 

Thanks forthe advice about needing a therapist but I am quite enjoying my discussion withyou. 

 

And then youbring up my comment that we are not biological beasts but psychological beings,and asking me if I am kidding.  Do youbelieve we are biological beasts or psychological beings?  And then you state that I am trying to “arguethat one is superior”.  I challenge youto find one statement on my behalf where that is even a notion I believe. 

 

And then youget back to your phenomenology statement. Yes, I agree the statement is just a descriptive term.  But then you state that “phenomenology doesjustify ‘separation of the sexes’”.  Soare you stating that our difference does justify our separation, againjustifying one to be in charge?  And herelet me explain to you the term ‘separate but equal’ because you apparentlymissed that most important historical fact. To try to keep the sexes, and races, separate but equal was used tojustify our racial and sexual prejudices. We all know about different drinking fountains, restaurants, Rosa Parkshaving to give up her seat, etc.  Tryingto justify ‘separation of the sexes’ does nothing more than promote theseprejudices. 

 

And then youcomment about my point with Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, that I am ‘jump[ing]down someone’s throat for arguing that there are very real differences’, whichmust mean that I don’t get t

Lenn

 

Wow, I’mhaving trouble following your circular logic, but let me give it a try.  First, you state that you bringing up thebiology issue was a reduction to the absurd (reductio ad absurdum).  I would agree with that, exactly my point,that it is absurd for you to use the difference in the biology of men and womento justify one having control. 

 

After all,you stated that recognizing the difference of the sexes does not put one incharge (patriarchal hegemony), yet you state the Y-chromosome (the malechromosome) “itself establishes that-if a weaker sense of ‘equal’ than ‘identical’necessitates prejudice and bias, then biology itself dictates such prejudicesand biases”. 

 

So maybehere is where I am confused.  It soundslike you are stating that because of biological differences, one sex is weaker,thereby justifying prejudices and biases. Maybe you could clarify this very ambiguous statement.  After all, you do then state that men andwomen are equal yet different.  Andagain, to clarify for you an extremely simple point that you seem to bechallenged to understand, the notion of equality is where both the man and thewoman have equal access to the thoughts and the feelings that go into everyrelationship.  I’m really not trying tocomplica

I think you both could be right depending your understand of your angle;

 A female is not the same as a male because of the difference that are between both like physical and strength but, one human is equal to another in the sense that they both have the potential for the same capacities like emotions, intelligence, behaviors, and so on…so, I do believe that they are equal and yet different at the same time

 

The nuttiest part of all this is that you agree with me and the commenter--you recognize how absurd it is to equate "equality" with "identity."  Yet that is what you must do to take issue what what he (and I wrote).  Because if you don't, then the only step left to you is agreeing with us, but since you're convinced that you're progressive and the rest of us are neanderthals, you have to assume that we reason that on non-identical equality women are inferior (value-judgment) while you reason that they are not. 

To me, this entire post tells me that while you do grasp what is needed for a healthy marital relationship, you have work to do on a therapist's couch.

Fourthly, I get what you are saying about Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus--the issue is you don't get it.  The point you make in your exposition does not compel you to jump down someone's throat for arguing that there are very real differences.  You ultimate point, which I agree with, is that IF there are differences, they do not justify one class of entities ruling over the other in ANY manner.  But you go beyond that, and I understand why.

It is utterly repulsive that you would write this about me, "[you] instead argue that one [of the sexes] is superior," but it is par for the course that you're playing on.

My suggestion to you would be this: don't fancy yourself so progressive (since you're not, you're a product of the same culture that generated the rest of us), assume points of agreement are greater than points of disagreement, and reason accordingly. 

You have now jumped all over TWO men who might very well hold positions that are COMPLETELY consistent with yours.  Why is that?

lol.

First, my bringing up biology was a reductio ad absurdum--IF "equality" is defined as "identity" and it is assumed that "lack of equality" necessitates patriarchy, THEN biology itself necessitates patriarchy.  This is clearly absurd and hence at least one (or in my opinion, both) of the antecedent conditions are false.

Second, I have read your post again.  Here it is in a nutshell:

Paragraph 1--condescension

Paragraph 2--bold claim about what evidence will do

Paragraph 3--unrelated historical "evidence"

Paragraph 4--the equivocation, switching from 'equality' to 'balance'
Paragraph 5--discourse on balance

Paragraph 6--analogy between 'equality' and 'thought's and 'feelings'

Paragraph 7--undefended dismissal of opponent's analogy

Paragraph 8--accusation of misogyny

That's your post; no logic, just rhetoric, which is the pot calling the kettle 'black.'

Third, this quote is insane: "we are not biological beasts but psychological beings, something not yet understood in the psychology world."  [Are you kidding?!?!?!]  And that is where you fail to recognize the notion of equality, but instead argue that one is superior, and yes this does unfortunately land you in patriarchal hegemony."  The point IS, you are sliding, right f***ing there, from the bare concept of 'equality' to a valuative concept of 'superiority,' meaning that yes, sir, you are equivocating.  You can't get value judgments from facts, and the fact is, there are differences between the sexes, and you and I agree that that does NOT necessitate value judgments about 'superiority'.  The fact that you GO there shows how disingenuous you are.

Third, on phenomenology, it is merely descriptive, not prescriptive.  And your paragraph here is one more case of equivocation.  Phenomenology does justify 'separation of sexes' qua classes of entities.  It does not tell us what to do with that.  The fact

In fact, every senseless child knows that thoughts and feelings are 2 different phenomenon.  We all know that.  Thoughts will never = feelings, this is impossible.  
Unfortunately you completely miss the entire point in the discussion of equality is when men and women both get to share equally in the thoughts and feelings in the relationship.  
May I suggest you go back and read my response again. 
I would actually state that my position is un equivocated instead of equivocated.  
SincerelyTim

LennLet me begin by correcting your fundamental statement, that equal means identical.  Unfortunately this is absolutely not true, and clouds the rest of your argument.  
In fact, I would state the opposite, that equal doesn't mean identical, that would require each to completely comply with the other in a relationship.  In fact, equal allows each in a relationship to blossom in his or her own way.  
And unfortunately your use of biological concepts completely misses the point, that we are not biological beasts but psychological beings, something not yet understood in the psychology world.  And that is where you fail to recognize the notion of equality, but instead argue that one is superior, and yes this does unfortunately land you in patriarchal hegemony, as you even conclude yourself.  
Even your use of the term phenomenological shows your lack of understanding the goal in the relationship, not using our biological differences to justify the separation of the sexes, but instead understanding the mental relationship between 2 to promote a balancing of the relationship. 
And explaining the metaphorical representation of men and women are from different planets to justify their differences does nothing but describe the problem, just my point.   If men and women truly used that platform to appreciate the differences between them then we still wouldn't have a 50% divorce rate.  
I am sorry if you find it offensive that I use historical analogies to present the facts of the result of our prejudicial nature, but you completely miss the point.  We know from our prejudicial beliefs in the past that if you promote inequality, which is exactly what you are attempting to do with your diatribe, then you cannot find balance.  
If men and women do not look equally at each other then one or both will always try to take control.  And here is where you error again in your completely illogical stance that equality means identical.

Sorry, but I agree with lenn 100% on this. lenn makes very valid points. I can't believe that someone would actually see things the way this blogs states as correct. That says a lot about people, maybe to much.