None of this is to suggest, of course, that women are as a group, more likely to be concerned about women’s rights than men (or, in other words, the probability that a given individual will be sympathetic towards gender issues is higher if that individual is a woman). That, sadly, is still true. But one must guard against the fallacy of division that ascribes this property to every woman. That’s why the notion of the ‘first woman president’ is a largely meaningless one [1]. We have little or no reason to expect that a woman who is president will be, simply by the fact of being a woman, more responsive to gender issues than a man would be in her place [2]. (2x3x7)
One must also guard against the tendency to post Wikipedia links without actually reading them.
This is a great idea – if one runs out of ideas for blog posts, one can always write posts attack other bloggers’ posts 😉 I can see how this will provide an unending supply of blog posts.
While I did not agree with Falstaff’s point in his post, I don’t see how his wiki reference was inappropriate. What am I missing?
Missing “that” between “posts” and “attack”.
That is uncalled for. Attacking other bloggers has been a long and honourable tradition on this blog, regardless of whether I have run out of ideas or not.
And yet you refuse to attack cartel, despite my insinuations, supplications and plain old baiting. What is this world coming to.