Re: Patriarchy: Re: What

Richard F. Hall (
Sat, 31 Aug 1996 05:19:31 MST

In article <4vu0hd$> (Albert Himoe) writes:
>From: (Albert Himoe)
>Subject: Re: Patriarchy: Re: What
>Date: 27 Aug 1996 05:19:41 GMT

>To: Susan <>
>Subject: Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

>> And this is the crux of it, I think. As a culture, we are all to ready
>> to commit the fallacy you referred to, that
>> "biological=natural=inevitable=good." Even if something could be
>> demonstrated to be completley biological in origin, that still doesn't
>> mean it can't and shouldn't be changed.

>It sure makes it harder, though. I wonder about the source of
>principles that say it is good to go against biology. For example, if
>men are genetically better at math, what's the point of making a
>special effort to encourage women to go into the field. Doesn't this
>encourage a misallocation of talent?

No, there are some women that are better than most men at math. There are a
few women that have advanced the field of science through math and thank
goodness they had the opportunity... Actually, niether the King's horses or
the King's men could stop them!

richard f hall

> € OLXWin 1.00a €
>Albert Himoe /* In reason we trust */