[Fwd: Re: ignore this, it's about women and sexism ...]

Rob Schaap rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au
Thu Nov 25 19:08:14 PST 1999

Oh, I see Katha has said all I've just been typing at yez already!

Er, well said, Katha.

But back to Kelley, who's catching a lot I ain't throwing:

>also, how is that you ignore the research that suggests that our social
>>conditions shape the biological?

I'm not ignoring it, just wasn't talking about it at the time is all. Wouldn't be surprised at all if this is the case, anyway.

>the brain research that
>shuggests that the brain changes under social conditions ?

Look, I didn't mention I saw a dirty great Tiger Snake yesterday, either. But I sure as hell wasn't ignoring it.

>why ignore
>research that suggests something counter or fatal to your argument?

Well, I was kinda hoping we might not take an either/or theoretical approach here. Dialectic doesn't let us do that, does it?

>i could deal with research about how testosterone
>makes men more agressive. i'd simply say, so what? that doesn't mean that
>we have to accept aggression or the behavior they engage in and if it's an
>issue then we can make special places for them to go to constructively
>expel it.

Well, I reckon testosterone probably does just this, and, no, it doesn't mean we have to accept any shit from the testosterone-rich, and, yes, there's lots of ways we might come up with for a bit of aggression expulsion. We agree then. Good.

Cheers, Rob.

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list