NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/bit/listserv/psycgrad/4501

Text File | 1992-11-16 | 1.8 KB | 37 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!bcm!convex!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!WATSON.IBM.COM!GERRI
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:06:15 EST
Sender:       "Psychology Graduate Students Discussion Group List"
              <[e-mail]>
From:         "Gerri Oppedisano (8-863-7225)" <[e-mail]>
Subject:      feminists and defining terms
Lines: 25

>    Re definition: What's this ... Socrates? I have to define my terms
> before I can play?  Maybe defining feminists is like what the supreme
> court justice said about pornography (you can assume this is not about
> C. Thomas) -- I can't define it but I know it when I see it.  Or maybe
> we ought to try a DSM style chinese menu form of defining the BAH
> feminist syndrome: diagnose if five of the following nine symptoms are
> present and have been present more days than not for the past six months:
> Naaah, I'm not going to step into that one.
>
> T.

I've pretty much been staying out of the "feminists" discussion but this
I have a hard time holding back from.. Tim, if you feel so confident in
making hostile sarcastic statements about "feminists", I find it
confusing that you are not confident in defining what you mean by
feminists. I find it a valid question. Some people mean very different
things when they say someone is a feminist. If you have such strong
feelings about it, it may be a good idea to sit for a bit a really see
if you know what your definition is. At least you would have a concrete
idea of what offends you, and you can comment intellegently on those
things. I found many of your posts very strong in feeling but low in
content. I have no idea really what your objections are. How is this
helpful?

gerri