From: Damien Broderick (damien@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Sat Dec 21 1996 - 08:58:45 MST
At 03:47 PM 12/21/96 +0100, 'gene wrote re
Kathryn Aegis's post:
>> completely indict the male researchers--it's an acknowledgment that a
>> balanced perspective was missing. A lot of reevaluation is taking place,
>> work that was formerly pushed aside is being reexamined, new evidence
>> and new theories are emerging.
>
>I haven't noticed that, but then, I have not looked. Does anybody
>knowledgeable second Kathryn's observations?
There are amazing cases in animal experiments where only the male beast was
studied; when females were brought into the pool, everything changed. In
general, though, especially with regard to human psychology, brain
dimorphisms, etc, I'd have thought the opposite of Kathryn's case was true.
A popular but heavily referenced book is Robert Pool's THE NEW SEXUAL
REVOLUTION (1993)
I *did not want this to be true* (as an old like hey man hippy) but it looks
as if that's the way the data are tumbling...
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:54 MST