Talk:Evelyn Reed

How many votes?
This article claims Linda Jenness got 83,380 votes in the 1972 election, but the Linda Jenness article claims Jennesss only got 52,799 votes in 1972. How many should it be??

Bronks 7/3 2006.
 * I'm thinking probably a combination of different sources being used, and possibly the total for Jenness actually reflecting the total for both candidates. I'll try and look for the most "...


 * Okay, good, thanks. I'll correct the two articles. Bronks 8/3 2006.

Neutrality
The entire first sentence displays overt bias, particularly this: "...male supremacist view of the evolution of homo/gyno sapiens and establishes through voluminous the anthropological research that women/mothers were the creators of the social skills necessary to evolve primates to hominids. This view is now supported by modern neurologists and geneticists. She also documents that women were the first artists, linguists, architects, writers and farmers and that they were the sex to tame fire".

"Male supremacist" is a biased term; "gyno sapiens" has no scientific validity in describing any part of humanity; the conclusions "documented" in Reed's writings are also in dispute lacking correlation from other sources.Spider Jerusalem (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"This view is now supported by modern neurologists and geneticists."

This is a highly controversial statement to make, especially without even a citation. As far as I know (I was an Anthropology major, so I know at least a little about this), there is no conclusive evidence on this matter. A citation of a paper done by a geneticist or neurologist on the matter(if there is one)would be very helpful here. Parts of this article definately seem to be ideologically motivated, i.e. not neutral. If this is the case, it seems that the author criticises a male supremacist viewpoint while replacing it with, and favouring, a female supremacist viewpoint. Very Hypocritical--and I doubt established scientific fact (at least by scientists who are are conducting value free research). I changed some the wording to make it sound a little more neutral. 71.7.217.61 (talk)


 * I always wondered what the evidentiary basis was for Reed's assertions on this issue. How in a material sense do we reconstruct the social relations of humans who died eons ago  without leaving any written record?  Surely the findings of archeologists will not sustain such sweeping and politically self serving conclusions.  Moreover, selective extrapolations from the culture of certain "primitive" tribes today are exactly that.  On balance, while Reed's speculative conclusions may be in fact correct, her recitation of them was on balance a caricature of "politically correct" feminist cant.  Moreover, what these eccentric personal ideas of hers had to do with the business of building a socialist movement is unclear.Tom Cod (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)