re forwarded post . . .

Wed, 1 Jun 1994 17:51:41 EST

Michelle has asked what truths feminist post-modernist is actually . . .
by definition, all post-modernism is predicated on the core assumption that
there can be no truth except that which created rhetorically in a whorfian
sense in local situations . . . therefore feminist postmodernists have no
truth, but blatantly proclaim that their doctrine of no truth and
deconstructionof gender based culture is absolute truth.

Re: your argument that feminists have brought renewed integrity to the issue
of accountability . . . perhaps some have . . . but many have not, and many
are as prone to a Goffmanian abuse of power through image management versus
substance as anyone else.

I cite the case of the president of a Graduate Student Association at this
university (not anthropology) in which the female president has been called
to account by the administration and faculty for attempting to falsly destroy
the career of a male graduate student through false charges of sexual
harassment. If need be, my comments can be documented.

Our feminist post-modernist truly bought into the concept that her image
manipulation and politically correct power play could actually override
the substantive facts. In short, she attempted to metaphorically call
a `rose' by the name of `horse manure' and `manure' by the name of `rose'
. . . and believed that others would buy into her social creation of
reality by picking up the green wrapped `manure' and sniffing it as thing
of love an beauty.

I hardly call that anything more than an incompetent petty power play, based
on feminist post-modern belief systems . . . and that single case is
unfortunately all too represtentative of current `Bobbittian' behavior

Yes . . . I agree that there are many (if not a majority) of women in the
social sciences that work within the highest forms of academic integrity . . .
I have worked with many personally, and have the deepest respect for them.
But, one rotten apple can spoil a whole barrel, and we have far more than
one . . . including what has now become institutionalized discrimination
based on the principle of vengence for predicated past wrongs (committed
by other people rather than the ones who are punitively punished).

My example of that last statement: Kent State University . . . a social
sciences department . . . over 40% white male over age 50 . . . instituted
a policy of setting aside certain hires for females only, but advertised
them as open and equal competition. The justification and rational was
that new white male candidates should pay with their job possibilities for
the crime of the now aging white male faculty that was hired over two
decades ago. Logical huh! . . . let the offenders keep their power and
dollars and overly inflated egos and sense of moral integrity, while
punishing anyone else who tries to establish a career and living . . .
all on the value system of gender balancing and political correctness.
AND, justifying their action with a meaningless post-modern belief that
true substance can be socially created by a rhetorical committee process.

In my opinion . . . what a hypocritical bunch of valueless academics who
are self serving to the nth. degree . . . at other peoples expense, and
under the cloak of inclusion.

John O'Brien
Indiana University