From: James Kreul (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 19:43:15 PST
> I am tempted to say that interpretation is a
>result of your positioning me as a "man" and wanting to fit my post into
>the rather cliched stereotype of the man who is deeply threatened by
>feminism (which, by the way, is a myth held largely by fanatics; the
>standard masculine reaction to feminism is one of indifference, not
>outrage), but that would perhaps be too grand a claim to make.
Yep, it would be.
>>I think it is absurd to look for a smoking gun to pin an individual with
>>institutional sexism.
>
>I'm really not sure what this means--whether you want to claim the gun or
>the pinning is absurd.
Mixed metaphors on my part, sorry. I mean you're not going to find that
kind of smoking gun, so insisting on finding one in the hands of one of the
5 committee members is not going to get you (or anyone) anywhere. Or,
let's say you do find a smoking gun, an individual who is indeed
unambiguously sexist...removing that person is not going to solve the
problem in itself.
It seems like we agree that sexism did/does/will continue to be an issue
(to state the obvious). It seems we disagree on how to account for
how/why/to what degree that is the case. I'm content to leave it at that.
James Kreul
UW-Madison
email suppressed
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.