This is a great example of the modern form of liberal censorship. We won't learn from the political debates around the founding of the United States because the men involved "were slave owners". We won't read fiction written before 1960 because the writers were "sexist" (dear friend, I suggest you avoid the Iliad!).
Meanwhile, if the equalitarian dogma is false, we'll never know it. Because suggesting any challenge to the dogma will cost you your career.
Oh come on, that's hogwash. I asked a question about the book, I didn't urge anyone to stay away from it. For all I know, it's a view held by a character in the book, that doesn't mean it's a prevalent sentiment of the text in general, or of the author. I did however speculate on what it would mean if it were, and I still think that would make it likely to be less than useful as compelling, lasting speculative fiction. Even then that doesn't mean it can't still be an interesting historical artifact though (keeping the focus on this one element, e.g. on gender attitudes of its time, or in the history of its genre). Of course we should be reading historic works, examine their context, and the path from there to here.
But what if modern liberal ideology is wrong and human beings do exhibit sexual dimorphism? Will we ever stop firing researchers who hypothesize this long enough to find out?
You can't even bare to read an old book where someone might disagree with you. There are millions more like you, and together they wield a lot of power.
Actually I probably am going to read the book, because at this point I'm curious enough to find out what's really up in there, and because I have eclectic reading habits in general. Why would I avoid reading a book I think I might disagree with, after all? If that's how it turns out I'd still rather know an opposing viewpoint well.
Nor have you pegged my attitude towards genders correctly, by the way. I'm not closed to the idea of sexual dimorphism - but I think the significant variance between specimen of either gender possibly makes a strong argument for designing systems not to necessarily differentiate based on gender, so that they not ill-serve the individual.
I do think it's silly to say that being educated and career-oriented is in conflict with central "womanly qualities" or that such women automatically exhibit masculine traits, though. So I find that character's take on it pretty darn silly, aye.
But as far as being alarmist goes, I think you're blowing the horn a lot harder than I did.
But what if modern liberal ideology is wrong and human beings do exhibit sexual dimorphism? Will we ever stop firing researchers who hypothesize this long enough to find out?
I dunno. Will the so-called "researchers" ever stop coming up with hypotheses about gender that are so culturally specific and downright [WEIRD](http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/...) that a second-year anthropology student can refute them?
Meanwhile, if the equalitarian dogma is false, we'll never know it. Because suggesting any challenge to the dogma will cost you your career.