Re: Patriarchy: Re: What

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net: "Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation"
• Previous message: HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net: "Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation"

To: Susan <rgq101@uriacc.uri.edu>
Subject: Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

> And this is the crux of it, I think. As a culture, we are all to ready
> to commit the fallacy you referred to, that
> "biological=natural=inevitable=good." Even if something could be
> demonstrated to be completley biological in origin, that still doesn't
> mean it can't and shouldn't be changed.

It sure makes it harder, though. I wonder about the source of
principles that say it is good to go against biology. For example, if
men are genetically better at math, what's the point of making a
special effort to encourage women to go into the field. Doesn't this
encourage a misallocation of talent?

---

 € OLXWin 1.00a € 

                              

--

Albert Himoe                       /* In reason we trust */






 Next message: HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net: "Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation"
 Previous message: HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net: "Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation"