Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Len Piotrowski (
Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:27:08 GMT

In article <> Shez <> writes:


>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,

My impression of the history of the sociobiological paradigm was just the
opposite. And so my point was that the question, in historical and
social context, is not genderless, and neither should our answers be
restrained by a pronouncement of scientific objectivity. The traits and
questions concerning the traits under such "emotionless" discussion are
charged with this genderfull aspect.

>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.

Forgive me if my words seemed to indicate an undesirable value judgement. I
meant only to suggest that your original argument, even though emotional, was
still valid.

>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.

More than foolish, they would be irresponsible. In as much as the advocated
trait lists of the sociobiological paradigm are a reflection of a general
social bias and chosen for their explanatory value in support of a status quo,
then, as scientists and citizens we should be encouraged to scrutinize them,
and not succumb to the fallacy that objective science confers some immunity
from ethical evaluation. I think this idea is in agreement with what your