Re: Paul's bizarre def, and his diatribe, was Re: tree-climbing

Paul Crowley (
Thu, 19 Oct 95 21:36:43 GMT

In article <> "J. Moore" writes:

> That odd sound you're hearing is the sound of laughter ringing over
> the nets, emanating from those who know my background. Suffice
> it to say that feminist paleoanthropologists do, and did, exist.

Your prejudices are so deep and intractable that you are incapable
of even considering the possibility of their existence when they
are explicitly pointed out to you.

I am not really criticising you personally. You are merely a
priest expounding the traditions of an established religion,
and that religion has a deeply biased way of viewing the world.

I am sure your personal views on modern human society meet all
the PC criteria of modern academia; it's just that the
traditions of your discipline don't allow you to apply these
views to pre-history.

Take a glance at a range of paleoanthropological literature or
look through the postings in this group. Where's the emphasis?
- On the activities of the males, their hunting, beating off
predators, and the like? Or on those of the females and their
problems looking after the kids?

Scan the pictures in popular books on human evolution which
depict imagined early hominids and do a head count of males/
females/kids. Not being academic, they're not quite so
biased as the scientific literature; but they are biased.

This research will take you about two minutes.

Perhaps we should change the names to "wominids" and
"wominoids". It would revolutionize the subject.