I stumbled across this marvellous little article in Encarta, Darwinian Insights into Sex and Gender, while sewing, a passtime to which I am apparently biologically predisposed by the reproductive system I happen to posses. Obviously, the author already knows that her evolutionary fate has condemned her to be hopeless at understanding something so male as logic or methodology, or even attempting to win the Nobel Prize, and so she doesn't even try. As a bit of an introduction, allow me to quote:

"It is genetic differences that account for the vast difference in murder rates between men and women; but it is environmental differences that account for the vast difference in murder rates between men in Iceland and men in Miami."

I would like to be able to say that this article was published in the nineteenth century, but it is unfortunately contemporary. I want to go back through it and post a critique of the logic, but I currently have Canadian politics on my mind (which I shouldn't, of course, because my non-competitive ovarian psychology technically should have me not concerned about running the world), so I can't promise when. At least I won't be distracted by things like trying to become President of the United States, climbing Mount Everest, or committing a murder.

Maybe the challenge should be for everyone to leave one small logical flaw they found - don't worry, there are definitely enough to go around!

( "Well, the intentions are good; but the science is bad..." )

I could have sworn that being a philosopher necessitated a love of logic...