Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
13 Sep 1996 09:31:51 -0600
In article <lpiotrow.452.32387EFC@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Len Piotrowski <email@example.com> wrote:
>Whoa yourself and that big Cannonball Express of yours, Bryant! It is your
>"rape craving" hypothesis were talking about, not some other "race craving"
If we're going to communicate, Lenny, you've got to stop your dishonest
attacks, like this one.
It was made clear in earlier posts that I do not think that the
Thornhill's specific-rape-adaptation hypothesis is well tested enough to
be accepted, and that I was simply defending their academic freedom to
discuss their ideas. I've also said similar things about Rushton's
freedom to discuss *his* notions; does that mean that, in your eyes, I
agree with his racist notions, despite my clear statements to the contrary?
>notion. It was your contention that sociobiology had no traffic with social
>control and social engineering in contrast to Social Darwinism.
Let's be clear, Lenny. You're getting unforgivably sloppy, here. I said
that sociobiologists do not seek to oppress or "hurt" people. Social
Darwinists did. They were outspokenly racist.
*As I already said*, I don't particularly agree with Wilson. Nor is he
the spokesman or founder of sociobiology just because he wrote the first
popular review of the emerging field.
>So you admit to sociobiology's social engineering agenda?
I admit that Ed Wilson may have one. That's not representative of the field.
>>policy or substance, from those who suggest that reducing the incidence
>>of violent stimuli in music and TV might reduce violent behavior in our
>Depends. If they're not sociobiologists there'd be a world of difference.
Love it. Sociologist says, "hey, violent TV is bad," 'that's ok.
Sociobiologist says, "hey, violent TV is bad," it's evidence of fascist
Look: start addressing what folks say or let it go. Your twisting of
words isn't fooling anybody.