I'm not sure if you're just trolling or whether you're actually responding to the same comment I wrote.
> I don't think that more women being involved with C/AM means that a larger proportion of women are irrational.
At no point did I say or even imply that. In fact, I explicitly countered that notion as it was presented by another commenter.
So my position is kind of the opposite of what you're alleging. Please take the time, go back and read what was actually written.
As an aside, does a maneuver still count as Strawman Argument if the position of the original post is exactly reversed, or is there another term for it in that case?
This is the part of your comment where I thought you were implying a more general irrationality of women:
>It feels like a big gaping hole in everything we achieved with women's rights and education. [. . .] It's like a large part of our women went to a parallel universe "girls school", whereas the men in the mean time learned about science and reasoning.
If you're not implying that a large portion of women are less rational than men, what does this section of your comment mean? That is how I interpret it. I guess I interpreted it differently than you intended.
Edit: Note that I am not saying you implied that women are inherently less rational than men, which is what I think you countered in another comment. Just that you said they are currently, due to some as-yet unknown reason. I'm trying to dispute this assumption.
If you read my other comments it should be abundantly clear what I mean. And I don't see how you somehow extract the exact opposite of it from my text.
> It feels like a big gaping hole in everything we achieved with women's rights and education.
I said that because it is. It feels like a giant setback. There is absolutely nothing in here to remotely suggest I could be thinking that women are less rational than men.
> It's like a large part of our women went to a parallel universe "girls school", whereas the men in the mean time learned about science and reasoning.
That's an analogy. Let's assume for a second that I actually literally meant to say that all women go to special girls schools while men are getting the real education (which, again, I am not), then it still means that I assert it's a failure of the education system. So even if you went out of your way to be offended by that analogy, and take it in the most literal meaning possible, it still does not say in any way that women are somehow predisposed for less rationality than men. It does, however, imply the contrary.
This really, really frustrates me - and you have my apologies for the symptoms of this frustration - I'm not sure if words are actually getting across here. Clearly you see something completely different in sentences that are not even remotely similar to your perception. I'm really sorry if I triggered something here, but please do not repost my own position as yours while at the same time asserting that I don't hold it. It's unbelievably rude. And worse, it's a dirty discussion tactic.
I did not mean to accuse you of saying that women are predisposed for less rationality than men. Sorry for the confusion.
With that said, you still, to me, seem to be saying that women are currently employing less rationality than men, due to failure in education, culture, or something else. This is what I want to dispute. I disagree that alternative medicine being more popular with women means that women as a whole have been given less critical thinking skills. I think it's just because some things are more popular with women, and some with men. Alternative medicine appears to me to be something that is more popular with women, and it also happens to be irrational.
> I disagree that alternative medicine being more popular with women means that women as a whole have been given less critical thinking skills
Well, we're failing women here somewhere and my first guess would indeed be the education system in general, and maybe the image of science education in particular. I'm not saying that women generally employ less critical thinking skills (hence my original comment about astrophysics in that context), but at the same time there is very clearly something wrong that makes women more susceptible to this C/AM bullshit. There are clearly antibodies missing here, the question then becomes why are we giving those antibodies to men and denying them to women?
> I think it's just because some things are more popular with women, and some with men.
Sure, though as I said in other comments, by default I tend to attribute these things overwhelmingly to culture, not physiology. Being susceptible to C/AM and other crap is not a cute little boy-girl difference, however. It's a massive problem, because having a mind with this faith-based nonsense in it is clearly a disadvantage that precludes victims from actually understanding the world. Not to mention it's a risk whenever "alternative medicine" is favored over actual treatment in critical situations.
> Alternative medicine appears to me to be something that is more popular with women, and it also happens to be irrational.
My point is, that needs to change. It's not an innocent phenomenon. There is something deeply wrong here. To shift the focus a little, do you know which group is also extremely susceptible to non-scientific bullshit? Medical doctors. It's a huge problem. We're currently addressing this issue both in medical school and in hospital culture, but it's still an uphill battle. We need to do the same for women.
> I don't think that more women being involved with C/AM means that a larger proportion of women are irrational.
At no point did I say or even imply that. In fact, I explicitly countered that notion as it was presented by another commenter.
So my position is kind of the opposite of what you're alleging. Please take the time, go back and read what was actually written.
As an aside, does a maneuver still count as Strawman Argument if the position of the original post is exactly reversed, or is there another term for it in that case?