Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (78888)	3/2/2003 12:59:15 AM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm really starting to digress, I enjoyed your responses. Thanks. --fl

To: D. Long who wrote (78888)	3/2/2003 11:56:39 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Hence my reference to Strum, whose baboon studies totally contradicted the then dominant (heh) male dominance theories. Even though she had strong empirical support, she was ostracized with a capital 'O' for going against the grain of the current scientific "movement". The problem with peer review in this sense is that those that are sitting on the review boards are often the Old School whose very ideas are being challenged. I'm really starting to digress, so I'll shut up now. :) While it's off topic, Derek, this is interesting stuff. If FL doesn't object, perhaps we could stick with it for a moment. I don't know Strum's stuff but I do know that beginning in the early 70s I think, perhaps a bit earlier, there was a strong feminist anthropologist challenge to the dominant metaphorical interpretive devices in anthropology. Some of the folk who advocated those (and there were a few males involved) had a hard time as a result and some did not. I could name names if we went further into this discussion. But the interesting thing is that the history of that debate makes the opposite point to the one you wish to make. Over time those feminist arguments were incorporated into the discipline, so much so, that you get to the Bill's controversial point, that the academy is full, only of, leftist, feminist, multiculturalist, etc. He's not right but he's drawing off the point that disciplines like anthropology were completely transformed over those twenty to thirty years. I think it demonstrates innovation; not inertia.