|
|
Re: Human penises, was Re
Mary Beth Williams (mbwillia@ix.netcom.com)
6 Jul 1995 21:32:09 GMT
In <3thaqn$6oc@triton.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
>
>In article <3tfod9$pvi@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>Mary Beth Williams <mbwillia@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Bryant wrote:
>>>
>>>Dr. Williams is apparently unaware that sociobiologists are working
>>>within the adaptationist framework (i.e., she just contrasted
>>>selectionism with selectionism, and found that selectionism looks
good
>
>Dr. Williams replied:
>>Egads! I hope that you all can discern between sociobiololical and
>>selectionist frameworks, as my conversations with Dave Rindos would
>>lead me to believe that he draws few parallel between SB frameworks
and
>>his own (which I personally feel epitomize selectionism at it
>>foremost...) I've forwarded on to him a few selections from this
>>thread, and would ferverently argue that the views promoted in this
>>thread are at odds with general *selectionist* thought, as proposed
by
>>Dunnell and Rindos...
>
>Would that you would, Dr. Williams. Please do tell how adaptationism
and
>sociobiology are "at odds" with general selectionist evolutionary
thought.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Bryant
>
Thanks for finishing my dissertation for me, but I doubt my committee
would appreciate the effort... Thus until I successfully defend it
myself, I can't bear the title you've afforded me so generously... *MB*
will do just fine...
Anyway, as the proponent of a feminist/PP approach to my fieldwork, I
would just as soon lump all of that *Darwinist* stuff together and lock
it away in some dusty old closet where it can't corrupt young and
impressionable minds <g>... However, as I said, Dr. Rindos does not
feel, how did he term it, that *pop-sociobiology stuff* has much
use...In fact, he claimed that it was *excrutiatingly bad biology*...
However, I will not continue to quote my correspondence with Dave until
after I get his consent (bad etiquette, you know...) so this
conversation will have to be continued at a later date... I would
argue, however, that much of the *selected* traits you all have been
jabbering about, large breasts and penii, etc., are more closely
associate with the *australopithicine* grade of evolution, and are
hence not unique to Homo, per se.
In addition, there is a vast difference between the
genetic-selectionist model that sociobiology promotes, and the
cultural-selectionist model of Dunnell and Rindos (among others)...
Cheers,
MB Williams
Wesleyan
|