Re: Gender differences
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Wed, 17 May 1995 06:54:27 GMT
In article <Admin.0yrg@oubliette.COM>, Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM) writes:
>For every short anthropologist there is a shorter one, until we reach
>Gil, who is currently stooping the lowest. In fact, I do not believe
>that there are many anthropologists that would agree with him at all.
Oh, you don't like me any more, Eric. Dear dear me.
Perhaps you would care then, in making amends, to expand on the
importance of this hypothetical average man and average woman in
gender studies.
Or are you attempting to have us believe that we proceed with our
researches on the basis of some statistical averaging exercise, or
maybe should be just go out there in the field and have a look at
the field data first.
Maybe we could compare the Average Britain with the Average American,
yes? Or maybe the Average Pygmy with the Average American, yes?
Then perhaps, given the topic as stated above, we might begin to find
some cultural bias toward assigning aggressive behavioural attributes
to these TALL MEN, and assigning kind and gentle attributes to these
SHORT WOMEN. Then we would understand why all these TALL Americans
are such violent bastards, while the SHORT pygmies are all so gentle,
kind and loving.
But then, you would have to explain to us all how come the taller men
can spontaneously exhibit such gentleness, while shorter women can be
such violent screaming bitches. How come the pygmies can get into
fights too, like anyone else.
Taking our statistics just a step further from our very preliminary
exercise in determining our mean, mode, median and range, why, we
might just find that the strength of association between behaviour and
height is very weak indeed.
Wouldn't we Eric.
Or maybe you would heed friend Bryant's suggestion that men have an
aggressive gene spliced in there alongside their tallness gene, and
the women correspondingly likewise.
Christ, get off the crud "science" will you guys!
|