In the Sunday June 22 Arizona Republic, among the Opinions, Kathleen Parker writes in "Why women still do more housework":
... But little truck is given to the obvious: Men and women are hard-wired differently. Of course, that sort of statement will get you thrown off college campuses these days -- ask Lawrence Summers -- but common sense and experience often explain what science cannot.
Often? And how would one know when common sense and experience have successfully explained what science cannot? Science has an understanding of reproducibility of results, peer review, empiricism. "Common sense and experience" rely on assertions seeming true and narrow perspective.
I don't think common sense and experience often explain what science cannot explain. That's the sort of anti-intellectual platitude that sounds nice and like it might be true but is unfounded. It's "truthy", if you will.
"Hard-wired" evokes the hardest science in psychology and cognitive science. If men and woman are hard-wired differently, it will be (and in part, so far, has been) hard science that will discover this wiring, in what ways it works, and in what ways there are differences -- with care to understanding of significance in both its scientific meanings (statistically significant) and common meanings (differences that actually matter).
These differences in wiring will be anything but "obvious" -- this is the lesson, e.g. in popular science book Freakonomics, that things that seem like they ought to be true aren't necessarily true.
To deride serious researchers and scientists ("gender theorists") that any answer to differences in men and women lies in "simply that men and women have different preferences" is to idiotically beg the question: yes, but why do people have different preferences? Is this a matter of biological wiring? A response to cultural messages? Investigating this in a scientific way, subject to hypotheses that are testable and theories that can be proven wrong, potentially improves human understanding of the world. I wish the writer were acknowledging that, perhaps even encouraging women to become interested in careers in the sciences.
What the writer actually closes with is "Sometimes things just are what they are. A wishful theory is no match for nature's stubborn ambition.", a disconcertingly defeatist approach that admits unknowability where it ought not be given ground.
I was very disappointed in the opinion piece "Why women still do more housework".