Yeah it isn't always fun to hear you dragged down a discussion. But I am off for a week, so have at it, and I will respond when I return, hopefully.
Cheers,
-- ravi
On Apr 15, 2011, at 4:54 PM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
>
> I seem to have given some offence by characterizing
> another post as an exercise in sociobiology -- or
> perhaps by disparaging the latter, implicitly, as pseudo-
> science.
>
> Not to aggravate the offence, but it seems to me that there
> might be a general question here. The contribution that evoked
> my ire read, in part:
>
>> Don’t the Occam’s Razor’ish explanations suffice for explaining
>> [men's] fear of female sexuality: we see time and again that males
>> of species attempt to control the reproductive activity and choices
>> of females.
>
> It seems to me that this argument, if we accept it, probably
> has the opposite effect to the one we want.
>
> Consider, for comparison purposes, the usual bourgeois-liberal
> argument for non-discrimination against gays. This usually turns
> on the postulate that gayness is innate and biologically
> determined, and *therefore* mustn't be discriminated against.
>
> It's always seemed to me like a poor choice of tactic,
> because it assumes facts not in evidence, and
> because it would collapse embarrassingly if the aetiology
> of same-sex object choice were actually investigated,
> successfully, and proved to be completely epigenetic.
> There'd need to be some scrambling done.
>
> Why not choose higher ground in the first place?
> Even ordinary uncontroversial notions like personal freedom,
> autonomy and privacy seem to offer a better basis for the case
> than some venturesome empirical hypothesis about the ontogeny
> of sexual preference.
>
> But in any case, the way the assumption of innateness is usually
> deployed in our current political culture is to *justify* the
> behavior for which innateness is being claimed. Now surely that
> wasn't the intent of the individual who posted this particular
> just-so story about men's supposed fear of female sexuality,
> right?
>
> Incidentally, this postulated male fear of female sexuality
> seems a little broad-brush and cartoonish. What's with all
> those chaps out there who, if net.p0rn is to be believed,
> enjoy seeing their wives bed down with other guys?
>
> --
> --
>
> Michael J. Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
>
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
> http://www.cars-suck.org
> http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk