|
|
Re: On PC
Ralph L Holloway (rlh2@COLUMBIA.EDU)
Mon, 2 Jan 1995 13:17:30 -0500
I really disagree with this continued spitefest. The only venom and
close-minded I've seen in all of these posts have been written by
Professor Rohrlich, who if I am not mistaken is not really the 'earnest
young woman" that Mike Lieber believes her to be. I recall her as part of
a circle of woman anthropologists associated with Happy Leacock, and they
were committed anthropologists where closemindedness would have last on
their agendas. I am a physical anthropologist, so I try not to get too
embroiled in soc/cult debates, except where I see it leading anthropology
away from a holistic study of humankind. For years and years I've tried
to avoid gender-laden terms, and I think if any of the many students who
have taken my classes will attest, I've been reasonably successful--even
while trying to study sexual dimorphism in the brain, human and non. I
really detest seeing a lot of well-meaning men being stereotyped as some
kind of misogynist or male lout
trying to bond, bond, bond, simply because they take exception to the
rudeness, venomnous, and self-proclaimed closed-mindedness. This field
has become so fractionated that after some 30 years I'm letting my
membership to AAA go. There doesn';t seem to be anything in it that I can
recognize as anthropological anymore. I hope this thread can ease off and
something more fitting foir serious scholars take its place.
On Sun, 1 Jan
1995, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
> Thank you, Matt Tomaso. For my money, "mankind" is as excluding a word
> as "nigger" is debasing. The insistence on using it by anthropologists,
> of all people, shows a deeply-imbedded misogony and a denial of women's
> representation in language. The venomous emotionalism aroused by my
> objection, for the second time, to the use of this word (and of course
> others like it) makes me wonder about how the close-mindedness of Bjorn
> and his ilk affects their teaching. Ruby Rohrlich.
>
>
>
|