From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Tavris & Goldberg at CSICOP Conference
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 07:47:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.042422.2052@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>Tavris gave a fairly conventional feminist talk along the lines of "look
>how unfair these men are being in evaluating women," although she
>fortunately did not engage in the extreme male-bashing which
>some feminists enjoy. She is an animated speaker, and got extremely
>good reactions from the audience. They seemed to be "eating out of
>her hand," I would say.

	C'mon, Robert Sheaffer, do you have to be so *itchy* about
critiques of the male sex?

	Maybe it's just the plain *truth* that a lot of researchers of
the past have ended up supporting their preconceived ideas.

He explained
>how he once believed that all sex differences are due to socialization,
>which is what everybody "knows". But when he tried to pin down supposed
>"matriarchal societies," the academics he asked hemmed and hawed,
>muttered something about Margaret Mead, and begged off. This piqued his
>interest, and after doing an enormous amount of research, he had 
>determined that ALL claims of supposed non-patriarchal societies were
>bogus.

	This sounds too much like a "sinner turned saint" story.

	I have a hard time taking sob stories like that unless I can
see what his earlier opinions, expressed in contemporary publications,
were like. Say, what he though back in the 1960's in some 1960's-era
publications.

	And after looking at his work, he doesn't seem terribly
open-minded about the possibility of gender-equal societies, let alone
female-dominated ones.

Margaret Mead, it turns out, had explicitly spoken out against
>those who were misinterpreting her writings to imply a "gender reversed"
>or "gender equal" society.

	I'd like to see what she _really_ said. And why is Margaret
Mead supposed to be the last word on this subject? After all, she's
now dead, and there must have been _something_ going on since she
died.

For the last twenty years, Goldberg has
>been publicly proclaiming that ALL societies are patriarchal, 
>and challenging his critics to supply a counterexample. They have not;
>every claimed counter-example has turned out to be not supported by the
>ethnography that describes that society.

	In the estimation of this judge, jury, and executioner? Not
surprising.

	His critics _have_ provided some significant counterexamples.
Just read Eleanor Leacock and her _Myths of Male Dominance_.

>In the end, Tavris did *not* challenge Goldberg's facts, although of
>course she differed as to how to interpret them. They both agreed that:

>     A), All known societies are patriarchal; leadership is
>         associated with the male.

	Counterexamples abound, though in the form of both sexes
sharing leadership responsibilities.

>     B), In all known societies, the raising and nurturing of
>         children is associated with the female, and

	Haven't you *ever* heard of men raising children?

>     C), the supposed ancient "Goddess paradise" taught in womens'
>         studies classes is a myth.

	My only concession here is to suspect that it is overly
romantic. But the idea certainly has a germ of truth, and it is likely
that women in Minoan Crete (for example) had higher status than they
would in most later European or European-derived societies until the
last couple of decades, and not even then (probably higher than in
present-day Crete).

>Speaking as an amateur primatologist, I would say that after a feisty
>start, Tavris was pushed back by Goldberg into a "submissive" mode;
>and I think that this would be confirmed by most of those present,
>or who listen to the tape that CSICOP is (will be?) selling.

	Goldberg may gloat, but I don't see him disputing Tavris's
evidence for similarities in the two sexes' temperaments. If _he_
conceding something?

	If this is a fair summary of the goings-on, then I'm
disappointed in Tavris. On contemporary psychological studies, she is
probably as competent as one might hope to be. But she seems to have
bought the Conventional Wisdom in other fields, like anthropology and
archeology. In particular, her interpretation of the "Venus figurines"
seems off bat.

>I'd have much preferred to hear Marija Gimbutas tell us about the feminist
>Garden of Eden before those *men* took over!  :)

	Well, Marija Gimbutas herself is very ill, but a more vigorous
proponent of her point of view would certainly have been very welcome.

	Have you read _The Civilization of the Goddess_ ? Or at least
all that stuff I sent you? If you have, then I give you permission to
send copies to Steven Goldberg for his delectation :-)

	Even if some of her interpretations are stretched too far, as
I suspect, I think that her overall conception is sound. And she
doesn't claim that "men are evil" or whatever, as far as I have been
able to tell; where does she state that? I think she would probably
claim that the Kurgans' warrior aristocracy was that way because
warfare proved rather rewarding, and also because the average man can
outperform the average woman in warfare (see, _there's_ a biological
difference for you).

	And she notices that the Old European communities she has
studied had relatively little interest in militarism. This could
explain women's high status; after all, there would be no competition
from war heroes :-) Maybe competition in some more worthwhile fields,
however :-):-)

	She also briefly discusses the Minoans and Etruscans as
examples of Old-European-like communities. She seems admiring of
Minoan female fashion, interestingly enough, despite its Politically
Incorrect features of long skirts and bare breasts (as every
Politically Correct Diesel Dyke knows, the proper female dress is blue
jeans and flannel shirts and sneakers :-):-) And it is entertaining to
read her account of the Dan-Quayle-like response of some Greek
historians to the Murphy-Brown-type freedom of some Etruscan women.


	I will concede I have personal reasons for doubting the
supposed universality of male dominance. I've been in a lot of social
circumstances where neither sex dominated, and I think that that is
counterevidence enough for Steven Goldberg. I don't want to have
others grovel before me; I want to treat others with respect. And I
dislike macho-man posturing.


	And someday, Robert Sheaffer, this _just might_ happen to you.
On the road to Berkeley, where you intend to beat down some
ball-busting diesel-dyke feminists, you would hear a female voice
asking,

	"Why are you picking on me?"

	and your life would be changed permanently.

	Maybe you will have trouble keeping control of your car. Or
maybe your fellow BART (oh, no! PCCT!) passengers will notice you
getting tipsy. But your life will be permanently changed.

	(*joke*)


	And yes, I'm sure I can find my way to the Hoover Institute of
War, Revolution, and Peace without driving a car. At least, I can get
to Stanford University. If its members haven't all jumped into the Bay
after the collapse of Communism in everybody's favorite Evil Empire.

/Loren
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:20009 alt.conspiracy:12368 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3857