Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
9 Aug 1996 11:15:01 -0600
In article <4ud459$khb@bubbla.uri.edu>, Susan <rgq101@uriacc.uri.edu> wrote:
>
>>I didn't say that Francis and Crick were fair, integrity-minded, or
>>egalitarian. I said that their model of DNA has no social bias. Point,
>>if you will, to the molecule in their double helix that justifies sexism.
>>Bryant
>
>True, you didn't. And as I've already stated, I'm not sure their
>conclusions have explicit social bias (though I do think they reflect a
>particular world view). I just found it an ironic choice.
I have to question your police work, there, Susan. It was a choice that
well illustrated the silliness of the social critics'
(deconstructionists) contenetion that social context determines
theoretical content. Not ironic at all.
>It was good to
>know that those who are in this particular discussion are aware of this
>issue. Most of the people I know, particularly undergraduates, are not,
>hence my interest in raising it.
If they possess intro biology textbooks, as I said, they are aware of the
issue. I think that like creationists, some feminists and science studies
types characterize science more regularly than they study it.
I apologize for my earlier, offensive tone. It was an unjustified
emotional reaction to a frustration with a collective trend (of which you
are not a part) on this group to use "moving target" tactics of
argumentation. Sorry.
>Susan
Bryant
|