Re: Conversation re: sexual dimoprhism in human brain...
Thomas W. Rimkus (trimkus@COMP.UARK.EDU)
Sun, 19 Feb 1995 18:34:13 -0600
On Sun, 19 Feb 1995, Michelle B. Golden wrote:
> What are the assumptions behind the argument from a recent male poster
> that women's use of an analysis that includes the concept of oppression
> somehow compromises our "professional credibility"? Would a man who uses
> an analysis that includes sexist assumptions be subject to the same
> potential damage to his "professional credibility"? What about a man who
> uses an analysis that includes the concept of oppression of women?
First, let me quote my recent posting of Feb. 19:
"Women in the field of Anthropology have a very special obligation to
avoid letting their feeling of oppression (which in many cases is based
in reality) influence their professional credibility. Terms such as
"woman-baiting" do little to further objective debate. My advice is to
get to the issue and see if anything is there which adds to understanding
the differences in the way the genders react to the environment."
Second, please note that I am not criticizing the use of valid results
of an analysis of gender bias in any professional anthropological sense.
This, I believe would be proper and I would encourage the work.
What I am talking about is the clouding of intellectual discourse as a
byproduct of emotionalism - leading to a loss of professional
Third, sure, if a male exhibits gender bias, it detracts from his
Lastly, if you are willing to question my assumptions, please read my
postings more carefully. It is bad enough to show emotionalism about
something that is true, but worse when it is not. What assumptions are
you exhibiting in thinking I am a male?
BTW- I think you are on the right track when you see validity in using
the protocols of Anthropology to study anthropologists. This is what I
was referring to in recent postings on the obligation of anthropologists to
analyze their effect on the universe of their discourse.