Feminist evangelist on counter-offence against science

Only a feminist, who has such a strong conviction that she occupies a moral high ground, and so self-assured of one's correctness (or political-correctness) on certain moral issues, can point to a growing number of people in solid science and biology backgrounds who are uncovering biological differences between men's and women's brains, and call them "evangelists". In a snobbish, high-brow world where feminists typically resides and where they howl loudest, the label "evangelists" or any other names associated with religion (Christian, that is) carries a sense of backwardness, people who try to promote creationist view which is scientifically bankrupt.

This feminist must have somehow thought that by labeling people whom she dislikes with the name "evangelist", she could discredit these people for trying to inbue unscientific, biblical fiction. Nice work. Except that most people could easily see that, it is this desperate feminist, who is trying to sell a now largely discredited ideology of men-and-women-are-exatly-the-s­ame-and-all-the-differences-ar­e-socially-constructed'" which came straight out of feminists textbook. WHO IS EVANGELIST HERE?

If people want to talk about variance, that's fine-let's look at the other, more unfortunate end of the "variance", by that I mean the lower end of the long spectrum of variance. Most people know (though hard-line feminists won't admit it or frantically try to change the subject) that most of the highschool dropouts, beggars on streets, prison population are male. Why people like Amanda want to spend so much energy and time and space on Slate trying to push women, who have ample opportunities to do everything else in the world, into science, or jettison second-rate female scientists into top-rudder, ahead of all male scientists who presumably (according to people who inhabit the Amanda-ville) reached their position only as a result of male privilege, than to reach out to those really poor (mostly) men who have to sleep on the streets or beg for changes?

In my view, it is one of the ultimate displays of man-hating to purposefully ignore those plights of men in the other extreme end of "variance" and instead try to stuff precious space of Slate with feminist propaganda.

Ms. Amanda shows by her own example that women are not good at scientific reasoning and are very emotional creature. If you have scientific mind, you should be very much interested in DIFFERENCES, however small, and explore the reasons why. Instead what she is doing is to deny - or half-deny, and compensate with unrelated stuff (women can be better with training, etc.).

Ms. Amanda also shows by her own example that women have problem with logical reasoning. She keep downplaying a few examples she chose to choose, (and even those she cannot completely refute), then cites even fewer number of arguments she think would buttress her argument. However those few examples seem to be outlier, not being replicated, and be easily refuted. We really need a special math and logic program for women.