home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:20141 alt.feminism:4903
- Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.feminism
- Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!sheaffer
- From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
- Subject: Re: Tavris & Goldberg at CSICOP Conference
- Message-ID: <1992Nov24.003614.16801@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- References: <pirtle-131192175220@128.18.22.129> <1992Nov14.042422.2052@netcom.com> <1992Nov14.074722.3868@s1.gov>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:36:14 GMT
- Lines: 73
-
- In article <1992Nov14.074722.3868@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
-
- >
- > His critics _have_ provided some significant counterexamples.
- >Just read Eleanor Leacock and her _Myths of Male Dominance_.
-
- Her principal "evidence" was the anecdotal accounts of 17th-century
- missionaries, not actual ethnographies. Goldberg and Leacock debated
- this back and forth in _The American Anthropologist_ circa 1974.
- In fact, Leacock's 1970s claims about the Naskapi contradict the very
- ethnography *she herself* wrote in the 1950s about this society, a
- point she passes over without explaining. Bad anthropology, but good
- propaganda for "Womens Studies". But like so much of that stuff, it
- will last only so long as it remains unchallenged.
-
- >
- >>In the end, Tavris did *not* challenge Goldberg's facts, although of
- >>course she differed as to how to interpret them. They both agreed that:
- >
- >> A), All known societies are patriarchal; leadership is
- >> associated with the male.
- >
- > Counterexamples abound, though in the form of both sexes
- >sharing leadership responsibilities.
-
- Such as? I hope you can cite some ethnographies to back this up.
- (Leacock et al never could). Remember that "patriarchy" does not
- imply that leadership is exclusively male, only that there is a
- significant correlation between being a leader and being male.
-
- >
- >> B), In all known societies, the raising and nurturing of
- >> children is associated with the female, and
- >
- > Haven't you *ever* heard of men raising children?
-
- Once again for the benefit of the statistically-impaired, all this claim
- means is that those raising children are predominantly female. It
- does NOT mean that no men ever raise children, as Loren seems to think.
-
- > Goldberg may gloat, but I don't see him disputing Tavris's
- >evidence for similarities in the two sexes' temperaments. If _he_
- >conceding something?
-
- Goldberg noted this point, and said something like "Yes, and there
- are a *whole lot* of similarities between a human being and a horse.
- Both have two eyes, one head, etc." Yes, men and women are quite
- "similar" when compared to cats or pigs. No one will deny that there
- are many similarities in the temperaments of men and women. But only
- a feminist would deny that they exist, or that they can be significant.
-
-
- >
- > If this is a fair summary of the goings-on, then I'm
- >disappointed in Tavris.
-
- I suspect that many of her fans who were listening felt the same way,
- especially since she got off to such a rousing start - and would have
- closed on the same note, had she remained (as is the ususal, I'm sure)
- unchallenged.
-
-
- --
-
- Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
-
- Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
-
- "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
- Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
- broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
- where it will end."
- - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
-