20 Apr 2009, 10:27 am
20 Apr 2009, 11:55 am
20 Apr 2009, 12:09 pm
20 Apr 2009, 12:19 pm
20 Apr 2009, 1:07 pm
21 Apr 2009, 3:09 am
ToadOfSteel wrote:
watersong2 wrote:
I don't see why it's so important that a disorder has to be "gender neutral". There are issues that men face that are different from the issues women face. The idea that men are generally expected to initiate relationships being one example. I never even used to know this and always figured it was no big deal that I was too terrified to ever do such. I figured that eventually some extroverted woman would approach me. But that is not how reality works. A woman, even a shy woman, can expect to be approached at some point, even if it takes a while. A guy could go his whole life and never get approached romantically, and be too terrified to do it on his own. There are plenty of issues that women face that men don't, every body admits that. I don't see why it's a big deal that Gilmartin is suggesting there is a set of problems that men face that women, for the most part, do not. Why is he under obligation to be "gender neutral"? Why doesn't anybody hold feminists up to this task when they talk about female specific issues?
all ailments of the body commonly accepted by the scientific community are fully capable of affecting both genders. When it comes to body parts, if you have it, it can get sick... The only exceptions are for the actual sex organs... I.e. a woman can't get testicular cancer and a man can't get cervical cancer... Other than that, even if something predominantly affects only one gender, there are still diagnosed cases found in the other gender. There are documented cases of men getting breast cancer or osteoporosis, and we here at WP are fully aware of women with AS...
Quote:
I suppose it's something of a pet peeve of mine, where if something isn't 100% scientifically sound, it's completely invalidated. As if the scientific method was the only way to explain the unexplainable ways of the universe. 
I wouldn't say completely invalidated... certainly he made some good points, but it cannot be accepted on scientific grounds. By refusing to even acknowledge the female gender as even being affected by it (even in the secondary effects such as being unable to get a job, something that would affect women just as much as men), and by completely disregarding that such a thought process may just be a healthy variation on the brain's structure (instead he keeps proclaiming "shyness is never healthy"), it feels like he is trying to design the diagnosis rather than just observing the
However, science is not the only thing in this world... I would never make any claim that my Christian faith is in any way scientific, but I believe nonetheless... and I would never impose that you shouldn't believe in this theory if you do believe it... but just as athiests have the right to think me blind to reality for believing in Jesus, I have the right to think so for you and this theory...
One thing I do want to be scientific is the diagnosis and treatment process... I don't want to be diagnosed with something that hasn't been scientifically researched...
Quote:
Also, I'm wondering where he was derogatory in the book. I don't remember that.
Not outright... but he was a bit condescending towards his "patients" throughout... expecting there to be one "normal" way and any deviation from that is not healthy...
I think you make some fair points but just to clarify;
- he never claimed that female love-shyness could not exist, but rather he felt it was far more common in males and that was why he was writing the book about them. My perception was that he felt that heterosexual males of this personality type did not have anybody advocating for them despite facing some severe issues in life. He felt that their problems were invisible to society, and wanted to try address that. However imperfectly. While he may not have endeared himself to society or the academic/scientific community at large, I would say he was successful in reaching actual love-shys. Reading his book clarified many things about my life the previously had left me very confused. I know many others who have felt the same way.
- as for the condescension, yea, I see what you are saying. Personally it did not bother me. Saying "shyness is never healthy" might be hyperbolic, but I think it drove home his overall point in that it prevents one from having an adequate level of control over their lives. I don't care about whether or not being shy is "healthy" or "deviant" or whatever. What I do care about is how my shyness limits me in accomplishing certain things in life, things that most of society would consider to be 'normal', ie dating, a decent career, etc. I believe those are the problems which he was tackling, in which case shyness was not a benefit.
21 Apr 2009, 8:45 am
21 Apr 2009, 9:28 am
21 Apr 2009, 9:42 am
21 Apr 2009, 10:10 am
21 Apr 2009, 10:22 am
21 Apr 2009, 10:27 am
25 Apr 2009, 1:35 am
28 Apr 2009, 9:27 pm
28 Apr 2009, 9:35 pm
I can't say I've ever read the books so I'm only going by what the critics say in this thread.....which might not be a good thing..... 
29 Apr 2009, 3:19 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| What´s your opinion on Love On The Specttrum? |
31 Dec 1969, 7:00 pm Guest
|
| What´s your opinion on Love On The Specttrum? |
04 Jul 2026, 9:34 am |
| What´s your opinion on Love On The Specttrum? |
31 Dec 1969, 7:00 pm Guest
|
