>You might exercise the same level of skepticism with regard to claims to
>find a biological basis for sexism.
Yoshie, I never claimed that there was a biological basis for sexism. A biological basis for sexes such that they are not merely socially constructed, yes.
Never argued that the sexual difference that was given biologically justified or naturalised patriarchy, much less a sexual division of labor today (even if it did in foraging society, that sex div of labor being non oppressive according to Engles and modern day feminists such as K Sachs in Towards an Anthropology of Women, ed. Reiter. MR Press 1975).
But you and Carrol seem to forget what was in posts, e.g.:
Have noted Lewontin's witty debunking of evolutionary psychology (Rob never responded), noted other problems with the evo pscyho paradigm (remember points I cited from Gowaty, Feminism and Evolutionary Biology), Kaminer's criticism of Stossel, recognized the good sense of Hubbard (corrected your misunderstanding of her in fact), raised the question of why sexual dimorphism is actually less pronounced in humans than other primates (note Ehrenreich makes the same point), emphasised that this dimorphism has no relevance to how the family and social division of labor can and should be organized.
But why not continue to upbraid me while not reading me?