From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,sci.skeptic,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Dr. Goldberg Replies to "Patriarchy" Debate
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:25:30 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

>>>>>>Steven Goldberg (Dept. of Sociology, CUNY) writes:
> 
> 1. The attempts (like that of Brian Siano) to refute _Patriarchy_
> by endless discussions of the (alleged) political (and 
> psychological) purposes of the theorist are doomed from the 
> start. A political or psychological bias of a theorist is 
> relevant only if it introduces error in his theory -- otherwise 
> it is irrelevant. Siano need merely point out such error and he 
> can succeed where no amount of *ad hominem* accusations of motive
> can.
 
> *If* Siano can demonstrate that the theory is incorrect, *then* 
> it is reasonable for him to ask why the theorist erred and to 
> examine the possibility that bias is responsible. Put another 
> way: the empirical reality he would attempt to explain would be 
> the incorrectness of the theory. But, if he can not cast doubt on
> the theory, then his "explanation" is an "explanation" of a non-
> existent empirical reality and that is a good working definition 
> of "a waste of time".
 
     Here we go again. What I've been saying is that the matter of
gender roles and power is a far more complex issue than Goldberg's
'men are born to rule' hypothesis. I've indicated that human beings
have had a pretty wide range of social structure, where women and
men exercise power and influence in varying amounts. I don't
pretend to be able to disprove Goldberg's book, but I believe doubt
is warranted when sweeping claims about human nature are made; one
should not take the claim that women are incapable of competing
with men without the proverbial grain of salt. I don't take it as
the Established Final Word, as Sheaffer seems to. I've also
written, at great length, the problems with Sheaffer's building
Goldberg's book into the basis of a bizarre antifemale doctrine,
something which provided ample reason for such concern.
 
     I went down to the bookstore to look for anthropology books
discussing gender and power in human society. I noticed several
amazing things. The first is that none the ones I looked through
stated, unequivocally, that either men or women have dominated
throughout human history. Usually, an anthropologist will discuss
how people interact, in what spheres men and women do dominate, and
in what manner. Rarely is it a matter of who 'rules' or not; more
often, it's a matter of exploring the complex interplay between
segregated sex roles, mythological traditions, the simple logistics
of survival, and many other factors. (By the way, none of the books
I found even mentioned Goldberg's 15-year-old book, not even in
their bibliographies.)
 
     One book that expressly discusses these points is _Female
Power and Male Dominance: On the origins of sexual inequality_ by
Peggy Reeves Sanday, a professor of anthropology at the University
of Pennsylvania. I skimmed through it over the weekend, and found
it enlightening in one specific matter; studies of culture are far
more complex and subtle than Sheaffer makes them out to be.
Sanday's surveys of culture are evaluated through different scales
of male aggression and female power-- the degree which women are
included in political and economic decisions, whether men or women
have separate, segregated realms, whether males take wives during
conflicts with other tribes, etc. 
 
     I considered summarizing some of Sanday's points, but a
curious sense of _deju vu_ came over me. It seemed futile. In a
message a few months ago, I discussed how primatologist Sarah
Hrdy's research on female langurs revealed patterns of mate
solicitation that, to put it bluntly, didn't fit the 'coy female'
pattern they expected. Hrdy-- a protege of E.O. Wilson, founder of
sociobiology-- was one of the earliest sociobioligists to point out
that strategies that arose from natural selection could be subtle,
complex, and varied. When I posted this, to indicate how societal
and gender biases can affect the way we interpret behavior,
Sheaffer replied:
 
     I know that books on "womens' studies" will accept most any
     prepostrous claim, so long as it 'fits the tint'. This has
     been demonstrated, for example, in the discussions of their
     claims of 'the Paradise of the Goddess' or 'gender-equal
     Native Americans', etc. The question is, what do the
     PRIMATOLOGISTS say about Hrdy's claim (if  they can even
     pronounce her name, given its obvious vowel-deficiency)? If
     books on primatology say something like, "Srh Hrdy upset our
     previous assumptions about the sex roles of lngrs," then I
     will agree that Brian has made his point. But given the
     reality that "womens' studies" is evolving rapidly towards its
     own "separate-but-equal-truths" in having incompatible
     versions of Womens' History, Womens' Science, Womens'
     Anthropology, etc., no, I will NOT accept such a claim if it
     is published only there. You see, Hrdy's findings are likely
     warped by her pro-female leanings, and hence do not fairly
     represent the situation of male langurs.
 
     So I found myself thinking, "Why bust my ass to summarize
Sanday's book? Sheaffer'll just call it 'politically correct
feminist pseudoscience.'" That's been his track record so far; if
the research comes from a woman, she's probably a feminist, and
therefore a bad scientist, so it's probably nonsense.
 
     (This had led him into some amusing gaffes-- early on, he said
he wanted to see pro-matriarchy articles 'from peer-reviwed
journals,' and Loren Petrich sent him a lengthy bibliography. He
said he didn't want to see 'popular books' from the Women's Studies
sections-- all the while quoting Camille Paglia's _Sexual
Personae_. Skepticus Maximus, eh?)
 
     You have to remember, gang, that what I'm about to say is
based on having argued with Sheaffer for nearly a year. I've
presented facts that run counter to many of Robert's claims, many
of which weren't skeptic-like in nature (for example, he accused
Noam Chomsky of being a Holocaust Revisionist, and I.F. Stone of
being a paid Soviet agent). I've written lengthy and detailed
analyses of his use of biological-determinist claims and and quasi-
Social Darwinist interpretations to support his opinions-- and
instead of a discussion, the reply was "Oh, more ad hominem attacks
from Rev. P.C." I expressed a _mild_ disagreement over the JFK
assassination, and I started getting Email full of questions about
how I felt about the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, and accusations
that I was a dupe of Soviet propaganda.
 
     If _ad hominems_ were tossed about, I assure you all, they
went in more than one direction, and some of them were truly ugly.
Sheaffer's circulated the stuff to Goldberg; who else in skeptic-
land thinks of me as a nutty Communist Goddess-worshipper, thanks
to Sheaffer's screeds?
 
     Most recently, shortly after Sheaffer posts a note on
alt.feminism about how women are wimps who want to moderate the
newsgroup because they can't take his penetrating and incisive
questions-- he starts whining about how I'm ostensibly following
him around to harass him. On this, he has a point-- I have a
weakness for dissecting the Gordian knots of cranks, and Sheaffer's
are more interesting than most. (I guess many skeptics do,
otherwise we wouldn't waste our time debunking stuff.) In this
case, it's kept me occupied for far too long. Time to wrap this up.
 
     When one gets into an argument with a crank, it's a no-win
situation. If one tried to cut it off, the crank claims victory and
crows about how he trounced the other guy. If one continues to
argue-- no matter _how_ well one's arguments are structured or
documented-- it'll be an exercise in futility, draining one's own
energies while feeding the cranks's ego. We're not going to learn
anything about matriarchal claims, feminism, or the abilities and
capabilities of men and women in this shouting match. I certainly
don't think Sheaffer won in any way; he's embarassed himself with
some truly deranged screeds.
 
     But I've embarassed myself by giving him so much attention.
 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
Servo: "Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard."
Joel:  "Why is my life messed up? Page 74."
Servo: "When will this movie end? Page 155."
Crow:  "How much money can we get out of Tom Cruise? Page 85."
                                       "Mystery Science Theater 3000,"
                                       during a volcano scene in
                                       "Hercules and the Moon Men."
Newsgroups: alt.feminism