Re: Whitehead on Deduction (fwd)

[xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

there is some confusion below. This question is part of the commentary
written on Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose's book _Not in Our
Genes_. These two guys are well established scientists in the field of
genetics and radiology. Have you ever read the book Alan, specifically
chapter 6?

furthermore, nobody is totally denying observable physical differences. we
are denying "genetic determinism", ie., biological determinants of social
behavior--projecting the social onto biology. Biology is just a material
subtext of human body that evolves with social and physical environment.
Biology and social are interwoven; they are not reducible to each other.
As the question suggests "men" and "women" are "gender" categories, not
"only" biological (sex) categories. We gain our identities through
socialization in society.These identities are part of the sex roles
attributed to us as "men" and "women", and are not equally divided due to
the patriarchal perceptions of women as mothers and houseworkers. There
are still certain things that men should do and women should not do
because of their perceived biological identity in the eyes of society.
Biology is a highly "politicized" domain of human material in patriarchal
systems. Sexism is the "ideology" that people differ because they differ
biologically.Sexism "naturalizes" inequalites by "politicizing" the body.
(which is what socio-biology does).

second, what constitutes biology is a subject matter of discussion to
begin with. For example, being a biological male does not guarentee that
you will retain your biological identity for the rest of your life.
Morever,how would you classify androgen insensitive males? ambigiously or
unambigiously male? People develop different identities through time, or
simply choose not to be part of the conventional sexual division of labor.
Sexual identities are not "fixed", but rather contingent and changing.
Another example is motherhood.Being a biological female does not mean that
women should be mothers since there is substantial empirical evidence that
men can mother as adequately as women, or women choose not to mother.
There is even more direct evidence that mothering is a parenting function
just as fathering, not a biological function.


 Alan Isaac wrote:


>>Do you think the differences between men and women
>>are genetically and biologically ordained?
>>Read chapter 6 and think again.

>This is the same kind of near dishonest talk.
>Which ``differences'' are at issue?
>Keep it vague and hard to discuss, or you might
>say something politically incorrect!
>Here are some possible differences to consider,
>in order of declining obviousness.
>Sex organs. Average height. Average upper body
>strength. Average body fat. Likelihood of being
>diagnosed with an attention deficit.

What is the purpose of posing these differences? do you have any reliable
statistical information on this? for example, who has an "attention
deficit" in your logical conclusion, and why? furthermore, there are many
women around who are as strong as men in terms of bodily strength.
Developing a strong body is just a matter of physical training not a
"given" biological difference . Look at the women in guarilla movements
who can carry those heavy guns and fight with men at the front. these are
just societal  perceptions to justify the claim that women are a weaker
sex.

>Although most people with children have always known
>just how profound the differences are, recent brain scan
>studies are hopefully laying to rest the tendency to favor
>an ideological description of the world over the evidence.

On the contrary, there is a substantial empirical evidence that brain's
capacity to develop is higly dependent on social enviroment., ie one's
level of education, training, socialization, class, gender and race
factors (discrimination). African americans were not given the same
opportunity to develop  their identity as white men did..now the racist
Rushton book is arguing that it is because of their
brain size differences. given that this is empirically false and
politically obscurantist,  brain scan studies always carry the danger of
politicizing and racializing unsubstantiated biological differences.


>Alan Isaac

Mine