a. Net hunting: you give no sense of how widespread it was vis a vis the sexual division of labor that does seem to have held in the vast majority of foraging societies studied by archaeologists. In this case of net hunting, were women only allowed to use nets on rare occassions when men used lances and hunted overwhelmingly more frequently. Remember Engels' argument was that though the sexual div of labor held, it was not oppressive. This premise has also been contested, though you don't address it here (did sexual oppression begin before private property in immovable wealth? you are a social scientist and Marxist, I thought you would have been interested in the question)
Don't see how women making tools for foraging denies a sex div of labor; indeed there are those who argue that women's tool mediated foraging activity is what drove human evolution in the first place. This seems at the very least plausible to me. So the argument need not be at all that men's development of hunting drove human evolution.
b. I don't see why it is hard to imagine that at that level of technique a sexual division of labor would emerge though women's activity not devalued thereby. But would have to revist Lee's book on the !Kung San.
>4. i also said that dimorphism --which simply means two bodies--doesn't
>translate into "opposites" which is how rakesh portrayed them [and
>obviously it shouldn't translate as one is lesser]. though i don't see
>rakesh as doing this purposefully,
What I seeing you doing purposefully is ignoring everything I have written that makes such a interpretation of my position impossible. Talk about ethical discourse...please. For reminders of what I have written against using biological sexual difference as a basis for patriarchy, please see post just addressed to Yoshie and everything I have written.
>kelley
>
>p.s. rakesh. i think that carrol really was unfairly attacked in the first
>place.
I did not unfairly attack Carrol, and thus did not deserve a venomous reply that simply ignored everything that makes it impossible to actually fit me into his little pigeonhole
Yours, Rakesh