well yoshie, at the risk of pissing you off again, here is another piece of evidence for my case. evidence that i actually missed the first time round. someone had to point it out to to me offlist because i didn't see it the first time--or rather i didn't interpret it as important. here's another supAfine example of precisely how someone gets away with a sexist remark that wouldn't be said were this convo about race. who would ever publicly tell charles that he never misses a chance to turn the convo to race. riddle me that one? apparently roger had utterly no compunctions in doing so here.
and not only do i hold you, roger, accountable for such absurdities and blatant sexist meanderings engaged solely to turn my womaness into a point of my weakness and failure, i find it astoundingly sexist for i do believe that this is the first time i've ever seen anyone on this list flame someone for her gender
objectively speaking, i don't think you could come up with the first bit of evidence for the claim that i never miss a chance to turn the convo toward the socialization of sex! you are a laffriot roger. a laughable ass as far as i'm concerned so don't even bother to respond to my posts. you couldn't argue your way out of a papersack on fair and square terms if you tried.
i realize that folks will think this is harsh. but i think if you step back and realize how roger has just belittled me and rendered anything i have to say unimportant and trivial because he's suggested that all i ever do is focus on this topic you will see why i'm perfectly justified in deciding that roger deserves nothing but my contempt and none of my respect. not only, as i have said, is the claim objectively untrue, it can only work because of an assumption that speaking to these issues on a regular basis in this space is somehow an anomaly that needs to be explained. there are plenty of posters here whose range of contributions are fairly narrow but no one complains and no one says that anyone here only ever turns the conversation to a delimited topic. and yet roger has felt compelled to construct me as if this is what i do. i challenge you roger to do a content analysis of my posts and explain to me how you have any evidence to back this claim up. and then i challenge you to explain to me precisely why this is "wrong" what about the topic of the socialization of sex would be inappropriate here?
frankly i find the silence just as disturbing.
in any event, thanks maureen for the support. that post was very helpful because i wasn't entirely sure if selfish gene theory was related to the popularizations in the press. apparently it is. it's interesting too because the fellah i quotes, randall collins, is one of the most anthropologically oriented family scholars around and one of the most historical and materialist. he does a lot of work on kinship and property in that text, which other texts in sociology generally slide over on the path to the study of the US family which generally isn't conceived of in terms of kinship structures and property transmission.
oh and rakesh and sam, perhaps you could tell me how to define penis and vagina in scientific terms-- a neutral observation language. i'm referring here to the criticism sam made of catherine and that rakesh made of butler.
kelley