Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 12:08:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: The Mating habits of SUNY-Buffalo Revolutionaries (WAS:  Re:  M-I: Buffalo Balls (Last Post))


List,

I want to again object to the reactionary sociobiological conclusions
drawn on this list regarding the "aggressiveness" of males versus the
"passivity" of females. If you want to have a debate regarding the animal
studies, they are easily dismissed; it is just as likely theoretically
that aggressiveness raises testosterone levels as the other way around. 
And the correlation between testosterone and aggression or
"confrontationalness" has not been empirically substantiated. To make a
blanket statement that men are more confrontational and women are more
willing to compromise is one thing, but to essentialize this as biology is
deeply disturbing. I recommend that this individual read Anne E. Hunter's
(editor) *On Peace, War, and Gender: A Challenge to Genetic Explanations*. 
(Series editors Betty Rosoff and Ethel Tobach. New York: The Feminist
Press, 1991). In particular, consult Betty Rosoff's "Genes, Hormones, and
War," Suzanne R. Sunday's "Biological Theories of Animal Aggression," 
Doris Grieser Marquit and Erwin Marguit's "Gender Differentiation, Genetic
Determinism, and the Struggle for Peace"--hell, read the whole damn book.

This is the second time I have complained about this. Of course, there is
no limit to the number of times somebody may come on here and essentialize
aggression as hormonal (of course, the three post limit a day is in
place). There is also no limit to the number of times I *will* come on and
complain about it. The last time I was told that it was a joke. I don't
recall if it was the same individual. It doesn't matter. It isn't funny.
To see reactionary sociobiologisms on an international Marxism list--no,
to see them anywhere--infuriates me.

Sincerely,
Andrew Austin




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---