Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Len Piotrowski (
Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:56:16 GMT

In article <514k5e$> (Bryant) writes:


>There is even better evidence that infanticide is the output of evolved
>psychological adaptations.

Care to identify for us the loci associated with this "infanticide
psychological craving," it's current population distribution (male and female
members), the evidence of it's emergence, and the process of it's retention in
historical populations?


>I agree that the press can be reckless. I agree that the citizenry is
>pathetically science-illiterate. I agree that this might even creep its way
>into courtrooms--which is why I think scientists should clearly state
>that an urge is not an excuse.

Ditto for the "rape urge?"

>But, science cannot be shackled by such considerations. I am astounded
>that better science education, critical thinking classes, etc., were not
>even suggested in the life of this thread. The only suggestion I have
>seen other than my own (that scientists be careful in how they present
>data) is that scientists should observe research taboos.

What you've seemed to have missed in all this is the critical thinking applied
to a critique of the sociobiological explication of the "problem." Seems to
me that there are already organizations, institutions, and governmental
policies designed for public science education and critical thinking on this
subject, not to mention research. Where the source of your astonishment? Could
it be that the capitulation of these organizations to the sociobiological
paradigm hasn't proceeded fast enough for you?

>What if rape *were* more likely under certain circumstances? What if we
>could reduce the incidence of rape by correcting those circumstances? By
>observing censors' wishes and squelching academic freedom of thought and
>expression, we would never discover socially invaluable information.

I think censorship and squelching of academic freedom is a red herring. The
sociobiological paradigm asserting the predominance of male selection forces
is the question.


>Well, agreed. I think scientists should be cautious. But not silenced.

.. that is, unless they are sociological and anthropological scientists not
yet beholden to sociobiology, eh?

>I apply this standard equally; ... I will work vigorously to protect
>... academic freedom to research unpopular topics.

.. unless they happen to disagree with your metaphor for human behavior!?