Ann Coulter article
I stumbled across this article by Ann Coulter and I was wondering what everybody thinks...www.anncoulter.com It's the article on the homepage of the website--FREEZE! I JUST HAD MY NAILS DONE! from March 16th
-----
Here's the direct link to the article: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=46 (Ed.).
5 Comments:
This article seems strange. Where is she getting her information and what is going on. She is all over the place in what she is saying and needs to stick to a topic. What do you think?
I just can't believe a woman would write something so stereotypically gender bias and not to mention unsupported!!
In Ann Coulter's defense. She does seem to be citing quite a few sources. Read it again, she cites:
- New York Times article
- Pew Research Center study
- Los Angeles Time story
- Economic Inquiry article
- Technical Report article
So you can't really just accuse her of not citing her sources. Where is it unsupported? It's one thing to disagree w/ her. But she does present a half dozen sources for her position, some of them are fairly established academic/professional research journals.
And I think her question is a valid one: Are there gender differences between (some, at least) men/women? Are there enough differences that some jobs might be filled? Or is this (as I think she argues) a non-gender issue: people who can't perform a job shouldn't be allowed to do a job (even if that means turning down some people who might sue for gender discrimination).
If you attack her argument, you have to attack her central claim, not whether you thik she's "female-bashing" or not.
The thing that bothered me was the negative comments she was saying about women. I don't like that she almost seems to be blaming that the killer got away just because the guard was a woman, Her idea was; "I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals." Even though she was problaby being a little sarcatstic, it's the principle of the fact. There is no evidnce that the criminal could not have overpowered a man. Actually I have taken criminal justice classes and spoke with police officers, where I was given information that women are actually better at "cooling out" a situation and talking criminal down. Here's my slightly sarcastic comment, sure maybe the criminal would have been stopped if the guard were a man, but more than likely the criminal would have been dead. Because men are more likely to use their weapon and escalate a situation. Also I can't help but question her sources because I don't know how credible their studies are and I'm not sure she is using every quoted source as a way to really reference what she is saying and rather attempting to make this article look cradible.
If you're most bothered by her negative comments about women, is that enough to overcome her evidence? You'd have to challenge the actual argument, not its consequences. Because that would be appeal to consequences.
It also seems that your objection to her argument comes from an a priori argument.
You don't have to agree w/ Coulter, but you have to at least notice that she is using numerour sources for evidence. And she also points out the same claim you make: that women are better at cooling out a situation, but points to evidence that women (contraty to your claim) resort to violent force most often.
Coulter's main argument, which is what needs to be addressed, is whether being politically correct means ignoring some evidence.
For the record, I believe women are capable of any job men are. But I believe some people (individuals) aren't capable of certain jobs. I suspect a better argument would be that big people (men/women) should escort violent criminals, not smallish people (men/women).
Coulter's implicit claim seems to be that affirmative action policies that ensured women worked as guards led to deaths. That claim might be overstated. But arguing against an unpopular claim doesn't take away the responsibility to use all the tools of critical thinking (which includes considering the possibility she's right and avoiding logical fallacies).
Post a Comment
<< Home