Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Len Piotrowski (email@example.com)
Thu, 12 Sep 1996 16:12:38 GMT
In article <syemifBRfLNyEwOQ@oldcity.demon.co.uk> Shez <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Yes you are right mine was a moral assertion, but to some extent
>everyone is biased by there own morals and upbringing.
> You caught me on a very sore spot, I have seen what rape can do,
>and my reaction was therefore based on emotion .
You shouldn't have to apologize for expressing your gut feeling over this. The
male oriented selectionist bias are obvious ...
> You state * "I think a lot remains to be studied in terms of rape
>being a specific mating adaptation in humans instead of a behavioral
>side-effect of coercive and sex-seeking modules, but the way to get at
>whether this null hypotheses is viable is to first rigorously test the
>adaptation hypothesis. Not one of Thornhill's critics has bothered."*
It is a mistake to except the sociobiologist's definition of such "traits" as
universally human traits and therefore evidence of *human* adaptation. It
merely disguises a true relation in their paradigm dominated by *male* trait
selection, generated from an historically contingent worldview. The real point
of controversy should be the sociobiologist's assumption of *male* adaptation
over all else!