Re: Gender differences
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Sun, 28 May 1995 06:08:06 GMT
In article <3ptsa5$44e@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Mary Beth Williams (mbwillia@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>Although I remember that a few of the responses (in the Arch-L debate)
>were reactionary, most were well thought out and very valid. The
>entire debate is archived on WWW on the Arch-L archive... I can get you
>the address if you're truly interested (the debate went on for weeks).
>In addition, if I recall correctly, most of the more viceral responses
>sprung from an unquestioning assertion by the original poster that such
>findings were along the lines of *innate, hereditary aspects of human
>capability* and thus hard, scientific facts.
Fascinating attempt here at asserting control of the discourse of
anthropology! All you people do is commit a fallacy of reduction, in
denying the person their genetic material represents and attributing
the same person's behaviour to their "genes" instead.
Then, of all things, asserting that this approach arrives at "hard,
scientific facts" in your vain attempt at legitimacy in anthropology.
Sorry, but all this is already well researched in psychology, human
physiology and biology. Attempting to colonise anthropology with it
does no more than raise our eyebrows at the reasons you would have
as anthropologists to repudiate people?
Where are the humans in your anthropology?
Nowhere to be found at all!
This is intellectual FRAUD of the worst order, no matter how much
"funding" you manage to draw off from the legitimate priorities of
mainstream science; that is, mainstream anthropology.
>In addition, I would recommend that in the future, if you choose to
>cite controversial findings (or anyone else's work, for that matter),
>proper citation of sources would be in order, don't you think?
That would be very useful indeed. At least then we would be able to
determine here once and for all who had carried out any of the basic
research supporting these arguments.
|