Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Mary Beth Williams (
8 Sep 1996 18:51:20 GMT

In <> Stephen Barnard <>
>Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>> In <> Shez
>> <> writes:
>> >
>So why about Firl's point -- that Bryant doesn't deserve the
>Will Shez explain the basis for the accusation, despite Byant's clear
>record? Will Mary Beth Williams explain that while "Amerind" is
>offensive, "rape apologist" is perfectly OK?

When did I ever state that *rape apologist* was okay? Please get a
grip. I only stated that it was unfair to uniformly characterize those
who follow a PM/PP theoretical framework as willing to view Firl's, or
Bryant's comments as somehow *acceptable*.

And how do you come off equating the two terms anyway? Native
Americans have made it clear that the term *Amerind* is offensive, even
though we do not argue that the term accurately (though offensively)
describes people with certain characteristics, in this case, ethnicity.
Do *rape apologists*, as you term them, accept this the basis for this

MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst