|
|
Re: Conversation re- sexual
Anthro Students (anthro.students@ANTHROPOLOGY.SU.EDU.AU)
Mon, 20 Feb 1995 12:15:31 +1000
Thomas Rimkus writes in X to Michelle Golden....
>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
>credibility.
>Third, sure, if a male exhibits gender bias, it detracts from his
>intellectual credibility.
>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?
Now it does seem to me that there's a line up emerging here.
Women=emotion (hence their special obligation)
Men= objectivity=profesionalism=intellect (if a man ceases to be "objective"
he loses intellectual credibility)
Isn't there a large and varied feminist literature on this kind of
opposition. I actually doubt whether the charge of "emotionalism" would be so
quick to rise if it were directed at a male.
Regards
John Cook
anthro.students@anthropology.su.edu.au
|