Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Mary Beth Williams (mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary)
8 Sep 1996 18:51:20 GMT
In <3232EE07.38C2@megafauna.com> Stephen Barnard <steve@megafauna.com>
writes:
>
>Mary Beth Williams wrote:
>>
>> In <h1N3kLAWPiMyEwXH@oldcity.demon.co.uk> Shez
>> <shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> >
>
>[snip]
>
>So why about Firl's point -- that Bryant doesn't deserve the
accusation?
>Will Shez explain the basis for the accusation, despite Byant's clear
>record? Will Mary Beth Williams explain that while "Amerind" is
>offensive, "rape apologist" is perfectly OK?
When did I ever state that *rape apologist* was okay? Please get a
grip. I only stated that it was unfair to uniformly characterize those
who follow a PM/PP theoretical framework as willing to view Firl's, or
Bryant's comments as somehow *acceptable*.
And how do you come off equating the two terms anyway? Native
Americans have made it clear that the term *Amerind* is offensive, even
though we do not argue that the term accurately (though offensively)
describes people with certain characteristics, in this case, ethnicity.
Do *rape apologists*, as you term them, accept this the basis for this
characterization?
MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
|