|
|
Re: On PC
Ralph L Holloway (rlh2@COLUMBIA.EDU)
Mon, 2 Jan 1995 21:42:17 -0500
You still don't it. The hell with it.
On Mon, 2 Jan 1995, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
|