X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:15:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Discrimination

On 11/21/92, Tim Tumlin writes:

>Whoa, Kathy, isn't that a bit on the broad side?

        I was asked for my operational definition.  Feel free
to disagree with it.  I personally don't think it is too
"broad."  Remember, I said that  "I have no doubt that this
differs from other people's operational definitions of
"feminist."  However, it is mine."

        I am still waiting for your definition, to see if I
agree with it or not.  As an empiricist by training, I find it
somewhat odd that you are more than willing to dissect my
definition, without offering one of your own.  But I may be
falsely assuming that you too are an empiricist in practice,
and thus would share some of my beliefs in  how one goes about
critically judging ideas, hypotheses, etc.

>Why not say "Feminists are people who believe in good things
>and are fair to everyone."

        Hmmm, I don't see that your statement and my definition
are equivelent.  I said that I define "feminist" as  "someone
who professes to  believe that all humans have essentially
equal intrinsic value (thanks, Larry!!), that no one should not
be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion,
nationality, age, sexual orientation, or sex, and who endeavors
to live by those beliefs."  There is nothing in that statement
about "good things"--that value has been put on the beliefs
that I state here by YOU.  And not discriminating against
someone isn't necessarily "fair" all the time--I thought that
in part this discussion was generated to challenge that idea
(the idea of affirmative action, for ex. and what it
is/does/should be).

 >You don't distinguish feminists from a very large group of
>people who I don't think would necessarily call themselves
>feminists or attend to gender issues any more than other
>social issues.

        Yup.  I don't.  I told you that some folks might
disagree with me.  And I am well aware of the fact that this
definition includes people who don't define themselves as
feminists.  So--what's the problem?  I don't define myself
according to a host of definitions by which others classify me.

>If I were YOUR student? Would I have to take your feminist
>test? Do you think I'd pass?  I might even surprise you.

        Tim, there are a lot of hidden assumtions here!  One is
that I insist that my students are feminists!  Not so--I DID
say that I insist that they define terms, especially terms that
they use globally.  I know that pedagogically I'm not alone in
that (my teachers did it to me, which is, of course, part of
why I do it).
        The other is that I somehow have made a judgement about
you with respect to my definition of "feminist."  I don't think
you'd surprise me at all, because I have made no such
judgement.  If I were forced to hazzard a guess, I'd say that
based on other things I've read on this board, you meet my
definition.  But most folks don't willingly classify themselves
as "bitter, angry, and humorless."

>Reminds me of a Winston Churchill story: Churchill met a woman
>at a party who didn't like him. She said "Mr. Churchill
>if you were my husband I'd put poison in your tea."
>Churchill replied "Madame if you were my wife, I'd drink it."


        What's the point of this story, Tim?  Are you trying to
tell me that you don't give a fig about what I presumably think
about you?  Then why write this memo in the first place?

--Kathy

>Anyway, if you're satisfied over the correction that not all
>feminists are bitter, angry and humorless then that's fine
>with me.
>Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU