<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Neuroscience and Sexism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rabe.org/neuroscience-and-sexism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rabe.org/neuroscience-and-sexism/</link>
	<description>My blogging and writing sandbox...</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rachel</title>
		<link>http://www.rabe.org/neuroscience-and-sexism/#comment-190</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rabe.org/neuroscience-and-sexism/#comment-190</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your comment, Tom! I am not quite sure I understand the logical fallacy you are pointing to. Are you suggesting that Fine is saying because there's been sexism in the past, this must be sexist? It would be great if you could clarify that!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comment, Tom! I am not quite sure I understand the logical fallacy you are pointing to. Are you suggesting that Fine is saying because there&#8217;s been sexism in the past, this must be sexist? It would be great if you could clarify that!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom merle</title>
		<link>http://www.rabe.org/neuroscience-and-sexism/#comment-189</link>
		<dc:creator>tom merle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:12:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rabe.org/neuroscience-and-sexism/#comment-189</guid>
		<description>Hi Rachel,

This is a most intriguing topic, one which you know I am very interested in.  The comment you reproduced, however, did not seem to be a real critique to me.  Indeed, it incorporates a fundamental logical fallacy: drawing a parallel from present to past (e.g. "Beethoven was scorned by many leading lights of his time, therefore much contemporary classical music resisted now will ultimately take its place in the repertoire.")  I hope we can do a ~walk and talk~ on this topic or an Arts &#38; Letters Salon brunch...

TOM</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Rachel,</p>
<p>This is a most intriguing topic, one which you know I am very interested in.  The comment you reproduced, however, did not seem to be a real critique to me.  Indeed, it incorporates a fundamental logical fallacy: drawing a parallel from present to past (e.g. &#8220;Beethoven was scorned by many leading lights of his time, therefore much contemporary classical music resisted now will ultimately take its place in the repertoire.&#8221;)  I hope we can do a ~walk and talk~ on this topic or an Arts &amp; Letters Salon brunch&#8230;</p>
<p>TOM</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
