|
|
Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
14 Aug 1996 13:58:25 -0600
In article <32109E9A.7A6C@megafauna.com>,
Stephen Barnard <steve@megafauna.com> wrote:
>Joel and Lynn Gazis-Sax wrote:
>> I do see
>> hopeful directions being taken by chaos theoreticians and others who
>> are calling for the rethinking of classical explanations and intellectul
>> of nature (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould's criticism of the "shoehorn".)
>
>That's "wedge", not "shoehorn".
>Gould is a brilliant guy, but he brings more of a political agenda to his writing
>about science than just about anyone I can think of, short of Murray and
>Herrenstein (The Bell Curve). Maybe this appeals to you because Gould's politics
>aligns with yours. That's why The Bell Curve appeals to the likes of Rush
>Limbaugh. Personally, I don't have much patience with either one of them.
Nicely put. But I think that a lot of folks (be it Limbaugh or Joel)
think that the spectrum of political thought is bipolar, and that if you
are not, for instance, a fan of Gould's, you're by definition a fan of
Jensen's.
Also, I'm pretty sure that Joel doesn't actually read Gould.
He mangled Gould's "male nipple" analogy of developmental
constraint for the female orgasm, back when our exchanges consisted of
more than "oh yeah? Well, you're an idiot" and the like. :) Bryant
> Steve Barnard
|