We already are outside, and being outside or inside is not about "choice"
>
Generalisations and presuppositions about persons based on race, ethnicity,
gender, economic status ... whatever; whether positive or negative, whether
well-intentioned or not, are dogmatic 'isms that assumes an intrinsic,
immutable difference based on some arbitrary qualitative or quantitative
"difference".
What's the alternative- to pretend "we're all the same after all?"
Whenever we interact we are engaging presuppositions, and so what's worse,
clarifying the way in which identity issues might be important here or
blissful ignorance.
>Who is in the minority? Relatively comfortable academics and bourgeoise
>professionals, or persons who are oppressed or starving or constantly
>under threat of violence?
Such a question highlights the rhetorical effect of the term "minority". It
actually obscures the facts of the matter.
No no no
there's nothing "rhetorical" about being a minority, and only academics ask
questions like this one. And what are the "facts of the matter". And what's
wrong with guilt?
Mary
Not guilty at all about being a minority academic.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mary Bryson/is allergic to E-attachments:
Associate Professor, Education/UBC
Principal Co-Investigator: GenTech Project
http://www.educ.sfu.ca/gentech/index.htm (research WWW-site)
http://www.educ.sfu.ca/gentech/pbl/pbl.html (PbL WWW-site)
http://www.educ.sfu.ca/gentech/gendrsyll.html (INDS 502 class WWW-site)