Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Len Piotrowski (
Thu, 12 Sep 1996 18:15:36 GMT

In article <> (Lars Eighner) writes:


>In our last episode <512l4h$>,
>Broadcast on alt.pagan,sci.anthropology
>The lovely and talented (Bryant) wrote:

>>The Social Darwinists, as you know, proscribed social goals and
>>contributed to the oppression of disempowered groups of human beings.

>Yes, they did.

>>Sociobiologists, evolutionary psychologists, and behavioral ecologists,
>>do nothing of the sort. We seek to understand the nature of social
>>behavior, not to hurt people.

>So the claim is what? Social Darwinists were subjectively evil
>and sociobiologists, etc. are subjectively good?

Bryant's claim denies his own roots. E.O. Wilson's explicit aims in publishing
"Sociobiology: the New Synthesis" was to open up the field of social planning
and "charting the future course of society."

"If the planned society were to deliberately steer its members past those
stresses and conflicts that once gave the destructive phenotypes (aggression,
dominance, violence) their Darwinian edge, the other phenotypes
(cooperativeness, creativity) might dwindle with them." (1975, p. 575).

Substitute "male" for destructive phenotypes and "female" for the other
phenotypes, and you have the crux of the problem.

>>Do you understand the profound difference between proscribing political
>>policy and describing social behavior?

>Sticking a little disclaimer on things is not much of a difference.
>"Of course we don't actually endorse rape, but . . ." just won't
>do it.

... unless, alla EOW, it's in dwindle danger. Save the destructive
phenotypes to save the other phenotypes!