Re: Mankind as humankind; feminism as humanism

James Murphy (jmurphy@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU)
Sun, 2 Apr 1995 00:14:01 -0500


Before reining Michael Forstadt in,
> Whoa, Michael!
> Noone has even intimated that males would be excluded from a femanth
> list.

Please note that on 3-26-95 Ruby Rohrlich, in a commmentary on an earlier post
by Stephanie Huelster, stated:

"I am still wavering about whether we need a Fem-Anth. or whether feminist
anthropology can be integrated in anthropology. When the bully boys and
blowhards shoot their mouths off, I wish for Fem-Anth. On the other hand,
there are on the Anthro list some terrific men, <with whom I would like to
remain associated."> "Some" certainly sounds exclusionary to me, especially if
one is familiar with the general tenor of Rohrlich's posts, and the thought of
this sentence clearly seems to indicate that she does not entertain the
simple expedient of being on both lists.

Again, on 3-31-95 Rohrlich in a message to you, wonders "But why on earth
shouldn't we have our own list where we can discuss our stuff without the
inevitable nasty digressions from some on the Anthro-L."

While you may not have intimated such, it seems evident that as cosy as this
sounds Rohrlich does not envision the presence of many men on such a list. How
to separate the wheat from the chaff? A questionnaire? References from _bona
fide_ or proven feminists? A vocabulary check of a candidate's publications?
Or, as you seem to suggest in your response to Michael ("I know many men that
[_sic_] would be welcomed and encouraged to join."), by invitation?

I merely suggest that Michael's concern is not as untoward as you indicate.

James L. Murphy