Re: Human Nature: Born or Made? (fwd)

When people use religion to naturalize and justify horrible things, like
slavery or caste inequities, I don't entertain their arguments, I condemn
them. I don't believe we ought to entertain the logic and evidence of
people who seek to demonstrate theological truths at the expense of
marginalized and oppressed groups. Does this make me an ideologue?

So sociobiology is now justifying the male's need to rape and we are
suppose to elevate the status of such a notion by entertaining it as
potentially valid position? Sometimes things are either so absurd or are
derived from bodies of thought so completely discredited that they do not
require the liberal value of the open mind. With respect to theology and
sociobiology we do not as social scientists have the obligation to regard
either as being within the scope of our serious consideration since
neither are scientific endeavors.

What is relevant about sociobiology for the social scientist is its
ideological utility in reproducing white male capitalist hegemony. On this
score we must condemn it.

Andrew Austin

On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

>I just read the NYT article on the web, and it does not offer any evidence
>or causal logic for why rape would be beneficial in evolutionary terms.
>(I could speculate based on my knowledge of the basic principles usually
>invoked, but that's not the point.)  That doesn't mean there *is* no logic
>and evidence.  Wouldn't you want to know what they might be before
>you condemn the idea in knee-jerk fashion?
>
>After all, there are many things we condemn, such as inter-imperialist
>war, which we nonetheless are interested in explaining.  We would not
>approve of someone rejecting world-system theory on moral grounds, who
>said "War is morally reprehensible, and your theory justifies it as the
>outcome of structural forces at the global level.  Stone the world-system
>theorists!"
>
>Martha Gimenez' question ("what would a materialist feminist response to
>these arguments be") can't be answered based on what's in the NYT, because
>there are no arguments, evidence, or logic to argue against.  In other
>words, it would just be ideology (as in Mine's carefully nuanced critical
>response).  I would certainly hope that Materialist Feminism doesn't rule
>out biological determination on a priori grounds, or it should change its
>name.
>
>To generate a reasoned response, you would have to read the Nature 
>article, not the NYT commentary, (which is about the controversy over
>the theory and never presents the theory, even in summary form), and
>evaluate the evidence and logic, open to the possibility that there might
>be something to it.  Unless, of course, you are engaging in morality and
>ideology and not science...
>
>As usual, willing to stir up trouble,
>
>RH
>
>
>
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu wrote:
>
>> 
>> evils of socio-biology! stone new york times..
>> 
>> 
>> Mine
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:43:18 -0700 (MST)
>> From: Martha Gimenez <gimenez@csf.colorado.edu>
>> Reply-To: MatFem@csf.colorado.edu
>> To: MATERIALIST FEMINISM <MatFem@csf.colorado.edu>
>> Subject: Human Nature:  Born or Made?
>> 
>> That's the headline of the Science/Health section in today's New York
>> Times, with articles about evolutionary psychology and rape as an
>> evolutionary strategy. 
>> 
>> http://www.nytimes.com
>> 
>> What would a marxist feminist or a materialist feminist critique of these
>> arguments look like?
>> 
>> Martha
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> *    Martha E. Gimenez                    *
>> *    Department of Sociology              *
>> *    University of Colorado at Boulder    *
>> *    http://csf.colorado.edu/gimenez/     *
>> **********************************************
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>