Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Shez (
Fri, 13 Sep 1996 23:06:26 +0100

In article <>, Len
Piotrowski <> writes
>In article <> Shez
><> 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!

Lenny. my quote of Bryants words are *starred.* My reaction was
emotional, I tried to put my dislike of Thornhill,s work into a less
emotional framework, The question and the answer, were both genderless,
I do not think, nor have I ever thought that I am less or more than a
man. I am me. unique. as is every person on this planet. in other worlds
I am proud to be me. and female.
I disagree with Thornhills work, more on the basis, that it could be
used to release a convicted rapist, than for any other reason. I do not
beleive that his work is good, but I do beleive that other people have
the right to question it. as long as they bere in mind the fact that the
media might appropriate there work, and misuse it. that a rapists
council might use it to to strengthen there case, that a frightend
public might take it as fact not hypothesis. Hypothesis and theory, must
be tested, but not in a way that confuses the general public. Scientists
who do not reason the probable effects of such media disclosure would be
foolish indeed.

The 'Old Craft' lady