Re: Conversation re: dimorphism in human brain...
Lief M. Hendrickson (hendrick@NOSC.MIL)
Sun, 19 Feb 1995 21:58:15 PST
On Feb. 19, Michelle Golden, jumped into the conversation
implying some generalizations about the discussion (which she
admits she's only seen part of). It appears as a desire to start
another thread. O.K., I have no problem with her interest in the
"'culture' surrounding and informing this argument". I would
hope, however, that it's an unbiased examination. I wonder.
Among other leading questions, she presents:
>What are the assumptions behind the argument (from a recent male poster)
>that women's use of an analysis that includes the concept of oppression
>somehow compromises our "professional credibility"?
The statement apparently came from a recent male poster though
she chooses to connect it to this topic- else why bring it up
here? The statement followed her observation that "much of this
conversation has been between men, at least the parts I've
seen...". So what? Why tie-in female oppression? Is there an
implication that conversations where the speakers are mostly men
should considered as female oppression? Have men been oppressing
women in this particular discussion? Is research on dimorphism
aimed at finding gender superiority?
I hope there is no duplicity in availing her intellectual
interest to further an underlying theme.