From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.feminism
Subject: Tavris & Goldberg at CSICOP Conference
Date: 14 Nov 92 04:24:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

The following question, and my response to it, is from the Bitnet SKEPTIC
list, and may be of interest to readers here. It describes a most interesting
panel discussion at the annual conference of CSICOP (the Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) in Dallas, TX on
Oct. 16, 1992.


>    (Taner Edis writes:)
>
> 	I wonder if Jim Lippard could include more detail on Carol
> Tavris and Steven Goldberg's arguments *that were directed against
> each others' contentions*.  The summary given indicates that their
> talks were taken from their respective books, "The Mismeasure of
> Woman" by Tavris, and "The Inevitability of Patriarchy" and parts of
> "When Wish Replaces Thought" by Goldberg.  I already know these pretty
> well, and am impressed by Tavris, and rather less so by Goldberg.  But
> I wonder if they directly addressed each others positions, perhaps in
> the Q&A session, rather than just repeat what they already have out in
> print.

Yes, you were right to suspect that sparks might have flown. Let me give
you my own *utterly unbiased* impressions:

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.

After Tavris, then Blackmore, it was Goldberg's turn to speak. What I did
not realize is that Goldberg is a highly-effective speaker, with a Bronx  
accent and a twinkle in his eye. His prose style is, I must say, highly
logical but prone to academese, and I thought that if he spoke like he 
writes, people might fall asleep and miss what he had to say. 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. 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. 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 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.
     B), In all known societies, the raising and nurturing of
         children is associated with the female, and
     C), the supposed ancient "Goddess paradise" taught in womens'
         studies classes is a myth.

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.

Tavris did not dispute any facts Goldberg stated, and suggested merely that
"socialization" was responsible for the universality of patriarchy.
Goldberg replied that this begs the question: if both sexes are equally
equipped for leadership, then WHY in at least 1500 different societies
did "socialization" produce only male leadership? He argued instead that
socialization is the DEPENDENT variable, and biology the INDEPENDENT
variable; in other words, biology limits the variation possible in
the dependent parameter, in this example ruling out a society having
female leadership.
 

> 	Susan Blackmore seems to have veered way off gender issues,
> but her contention that "skeptics are now exhibiting the failings which
> she criticized the parapsychologists for in 1982" is most interesting.
> Can anyone address this in more detail?

Blackmore, while an extremely capable researcher, did *not* belong on
this panel, because she really has no expertise in the subject. In fact,
she admitted as such, saying she didn't know why they wanted her on
the panel. Apparently it was sort of, "Well, we're going to be discussing
gender issues, and you're the only woman on the Executive Council, so
go out there and discuss them." Right.

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


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic