Two noteworthy letters to the editor from when this review was first published:
I expect you will receive several letters from women who are not the partisans of Anne Moir and David Jessel that Thomas Jackson appears to be. However, I prefer to take exception to the broader issue of why you decided to review such a book in the first place. By including a piece on sex differences in a publication that constantly points out race differences, you seem to be suggesting that white males are the standard by which all the rest of us are to be judged.
Mr. Jackson’s lame attempt to justify his review on the grounds that there are “striking parallels between the study of sex differences and study of race differences” simply reinforces the notion of the “otherness” of women. Surely, AR, like all publications that write frankly about race, should take steps to include women, not exclude them.
— Paula Crozier, Billings, MT
Are you folks looking for trouble? It’s one thing to offend a lot of people by writing the facts about race; but why pick a fight with women. I admit that everything those people wrote in Brain Sex may well be true. They certainly confirmed many of my observations of some 45 years. But it is possible to take that Jefferson quote in your masthead too literally.
Our great struggle is to defend against dispossession by non-whites, and we need all the allies — men and women — we can get. It only stirs up trouble to take a provocative stand on a tangential issue. It wouldn’t win AR any friends to take an all-guns-blazing position on abortion, say, or Christianity. Why make an exception for sex differences?
Two noteworthy letters to the editor from when this review was first published:
I expect you will receive several letters from women who are not the partisans of Anne Moir and David Jessel that Thomas Jackson appears to be. However, I prefer to take exception to the broader issue of why you decided to review such a book in the first place. By including a piece on sex differences in a publication that constantly points out race differences, you seem to be suggesting that white males are the standard by which all the rest of us are to be judged.
Mr. Jackson’s lame attempt to justify his review on the grounds that there are “striking parallels between the study of sex differences and study of race differences” simply reinforces the notion of the “otherness” of women. Surely, AR, like all publications that write frankly about race, should take steps to include women, not exclude them.
— Paula Crozier, Billings, MT
Are you folks looking for trouble? It’s one thing to offend a lot of people by writing the facts about race; but why pick a fight with women. I admit that everything those people wrote in Brain Sex may well be true. They certainly confirmed many of my observations of some 45 years. But it is possible to take that Jefferson quote in your masthead too literally.
Our great struggle is to defend against dispossession by non-whites, and we need all the allies — men and women — we can get. It only stirs up trouble to take a provocative stand on a tangential issue. It wouldn’t win AR any friends to take an all-guns-blazing position on abortion, say, or Christianity. Why make an exception for sex differences?
— Name withheld, San Diego, CA
https://www.amren.com/archi...