Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Len Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Fri, 13 Sep 1996 18:04:24 GMT
In article <51bup7$1es6@argo.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
>[snip]
>In article <lpiotrow.452.32387EFC@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>Len Piotrowski <lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Whoa yourself and that big Cannonball Express of yours, Bryant! It is your
>>"rape craving" hypothesis were talking about, not some other "race craving"
>If we're going to communicate, Lenny, you've got to stop your dishonest
>attacks, like this one.
Let's see: Bryant says 'Substitute "Black"' for EOW's "destructive phenotypes
(aggression, dominance, violence)" and "Jews" for "other phenotypes
(cooperativeness, creativity)" and he wonders why anyone would take exception
to that? Boggles!
>It was made clear in earlier posts that I do not think that the
>Thornhill's specific-rape-adaptation hypothesis is well tested enough to
>be accepted, and that I was simply defending their academic freedom to
>discuss their ideas. I've also said similar things about Rushton's
>freedom to discuss *his* notions; does that mean that, in your eyes, I
>agree with his racist notions, despite my clear statements to the contrary?
Your words speak volumes in and of themselves. However, as I made clear in my
last post, this is besides the point. Your apparent distancing from the social
engineering agenda of sociobiology by reference to a purported difference in
intellectual history with Social Darwinism belies the facts.
>>notion. It was your contention that sociobiology had no traffic with social
>>control and social engineering in contrast to Social Darwinism.
>Let's be clear, Lenny. You're getting unforgivably sloppy, here. I said
>that sociobiologists do not seek to oppress or "hurt" people. Social
>Darwinists did. They were outspokenly racist.
I think your claim was that Social Darwinism was the historical precursor to
those fascist doctrines, not that it was inherently racist. However, that still
leaves little difference between Social Darwinists and the practitioners of
the New Synthesis in terms of a social engineering agenda. Either you
recognize that sloppy fact or not.
>*As I already said*, I don't particularly agree with Wilson. Nor is he
>the spokesman or founder of sociobiology just because he wrote the first
>popular review of the emerging field.
Not to long ago you were telling all of us just how new neo-Darwinism was. It
couldn't possibly be rooted in a book (versus a mere "popular review" ) of
some two decades in age, let alone something significantly earlier. Just what
is your time frame for this new and emerging field of neo-Darwinism? You still
haven't answered that question.
>>So you admit to sociobiology's social engineering agenda?
>I admit that Ed Wilson may have one. That's not representative of the field.
I'm confused. You say: "That's why I defend the right of researchers to study
the topic vigorously, in hopes of finding useful information for those who
would reduce its incidence." But then you say you're not interested in social
engineering. Does this appear contradictory to you?
>>>policy or substance, from those who suggest that reducing the incidence
>>>of violent stimuli in music and TV might reduce violent behavior in our
>>>young people?
>>
>>Depends. If they're not sociobiologists there'd be a world of difference.
>Love it. Sociologist says, "hey, violent TV is bad," 'that's ok.
>Sociobiologist says, "hey, violent TV is bad," it's evidence of fascist
>sympathies.
Now who's putting words in whose mouth! You better go back and re-check the
thread before you let Chicken Little loose again at that throttle.
>Look: start addressing what folks say or let it go. Your twisting of
>words isn't fooling anybody.
I'm addressing the words of a trickster, so some fooling around would be
expected. : )
Cheers,
--Lenny__
"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
- perlstyle
|