In a message dated 1/26/2002 9:56:14 PM Central Standard Time,
dhodges@ceo.cudenver.edu writes:
> it
> is irritating, frankly, to see an article i wrote
> on this very subject be offered for relevance and at the same time
> summarily dismissed
> as "experience" and not considered more usefully as theory....
> furthermore, as theory that speaks
> directly to the activity of defending sexism here, and how it is that the
> "women" are asking for a perspective
> that the "men" are indicating is unnecessary.
>
Diane,
I must admit that I am ultimately frustrated by your view regarding my
thoughts on your paper. I never said that your paper was not theoretical in
nature but rather that if I were to write of my experience I wouldn't
reference the same authors you chose, this is not a right or wrong thing. I
was the one who used the word valid and then in your replay you said you
weren't looking for validity.
This is obviously a no win situation regarding this topic because anything I
write will be construed in this community of practice metaphor that circles
about as a dog chasing its tail.
By expressing my opinion I am not trying to invalidate anyone else's. But of
course it is impossible for me to express this opinion without someone
thinking I am trying to discount some phantom power I obviously must possess.
Phillip mentioned this experiment was unethical and maybe we could channel
this discussion toward that end because I admit I posted that joke with the
intention of discussing this community of practice metaphor and how it is a
house of cards when something as abstract as a joke is discussed.
32 degrees at 10:30 a.m. looks to be another nice day,
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 09:22:33 PST