[Clayart] "Advocacy for amorphous gender roles is politically correct"

[Jeff Lawrence]

Doug wrote:
My point was that knowledge limited by rigid gender roles is more at risk
of being lost than in a culture in which that knowledge somewhat spans
gender roles. If all the boys get killed then their knowledge dies. If the
girls know some of that information they can pass it on. Its pragmatic, you
"don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Hi Doug,
I wasn't attacking you so much as the weird tendency in so-called
"progressive" circles to believe and preach that gender is a social
construct.  It seems to me that supporting the existence of amorphous
gender roles in a sexually dimorphic species like ours is based on some
faith I don't share. It certainly isn't based on any data I'm aware of.
Sorry if it felt like an attack from your side. Still, there's a big
difference between the amorphous gender roles that roused my dander and
gender roles so rigid boys and girls don't talk to one another. Might make
a good sci-fi story about a human-ant hybrid but doesn't sound like homo
sapiens to me.
Thanks for the Richard Leakey reference.
Jeff
Jeff Lawrence
jefflawr at gmail.com
jeffreylawrence.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clayartworld.com/pipermail/clayart/attachments/20180423/3434c95d/attachment.html>