Re: On PC

Ruby Rohrlich (rohrlich@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU)
Mon, 2 Jan 1995 18:07:50 -0500

I was certainly associated with Eleanor (Happy) Leacock, Ralph Holloway,
and I don't think you should leave the AAA because of people like us. I
am very happy to have discovered a goodly number of men on this list, the
majority, I think, who
believe sexism is as virulent a virus as racism. I'm sorry and disappointed
you're not oneof them. Ruby Rohrlich

On Mon, 2 Jan 1995, Ralph L Holloway wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
> >