(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)
i was simply pointing out that you were asking questions that were addressed in the article at the website where the rest was posted. i wasn't saying anything about how the bearing of children and resp for nursing them *didn't* have a role to play. speaking of ignoring everything, i friggin went on to address the issue and conceded that yes, it probably had something to do with it. ferchrisakes. and i've not portrayed you as the way you suggest. you did say once that it was oppositional and when i said something you conceded the point and stopped.
and i actually said that i didn't see you as trying to ground gender diff or oppression in sexual dimorphism. i'm sorry you feel on the attack, i've tried not to do this, because i have read you as engaging the issue differently [see more below]
>
>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.
that's the *only* reason i pointed it out rakesh. honesttofuckingodserious. i'm simply trying to have an adult conversation with someone who i generally consider an ally on these issues.
>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.
>
well i had a post in which i was going to address it. but skip it. not
worth the effort.
>
>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
oh no no no. i didn't say you did. i meant that roger did. sorry about that. truly. i don't want you to think that at all. i just think there's so much more going on here. like i never understood from the beginning why roger attacked carrol and not me from the get go, since i said some of what he complained about much more often than carrol. so i thought the dynamics were odd from the beginning. and i did want to say that i think that, unfortunately, you take some heat from us because, as i think angela alluded, we kind of expect you to be more on the side of downplaying differences than it initially seemed. and yes yes yes, of course, i loved it when you pointed out that were are far less diff than other species. thought that was a great point.
evolutionary questions just don't interest me as a social scientist rakesh.
i deal with the here and now, how people make decisions about their jobs and what they think the american dream is and how social service agencies oppress them. so it's like hardly anything i'm especially interested in and i don't see why i have to turn all these questions into questions of evolution. there never was a need to go in that direction in the first place.
the fem. anthropology book you mention is great too --that's where there's
a fine essay by emily martin that i think would illuminate my point about
how scientist's language reflect their paradigms and how it shapes their
research questions and practice.
kelley
>
>Yours, Rakesh
>
>
>
>