On a lighter note...
I read this series of interesting posts, and then went off to teach intro. The
topic today was "The Sociological Imagination". After class, a young man
approached me, obviously excited about what he was hearing. His question for
me was how he might use his sociological imagination to have better luck "with
the women"!
I wonder what I might be doing wrong. Although, at least he didn't get a
"gloom and doom" message.
Amy Hite
>
> From: "Jan Buhrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/01/20 Fri PM 04:01:08 EST
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: TEACHSOC: Re: Values in Sociology
>
>
> Martha brings up some good observations about gender. Although this is not
> my only area of interest and specialization within sociology, the first
> thing that struck me after reading the first several posts on this topic was
> that the almost 'competitive' tone of the various responses all were
> submitted by male sociologists.
>
> ...Interesting how those ingrained 'gender norms' are at work, even as we're
> examining and discussing the discipline of sociology.
>
> - Jan Buhrmann
>
> ==========================
> Jan Buhrmann, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Sociology
> Illinois College
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone: 217-245-3877
>
> "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions that differ
> from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even
> incapable of forming such opinions."
>
> -- Albert Einstein
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of GIMENEZ MARTHA E
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:48 PM
> To: Brett Magill
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: TEACHSOC: Re: Values in Sociology
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Brett Magill wrote:
>
> >
> > Though none will be satisfied with any definition of sociology
> > proposed, I will venture to say that it is a discipline that makes an
> > effort to understand things social. Structures, culture,
> > interactions, beliefs and values, and their mutual influences.
>
> Yes, but which "things social" and from what theoretical perspective? I
> remember when "order" models prevailed, women were defined as "lactating
> organisms" (thus legitimating the sexual division of labor), gender
> inequality at home and in the occupational structure was considered
> "functional" for marital integration and solidarity, "underdevelopment"
> was explained as an effect of lack of "achievement motivation," the nuclear
> family was a "functional prerequisite of all societies," and social
> inequality was simply "an unconsciously evolved mechanism" to make sure
> talented people were motivated to fulfill functionally important
> positions... and I could go on....
>
> Do you think all those views were "scientific" and "value free"?
>
> Best,
>
>
> Martha E. Gimenez
> Department of Sociology
> Campus Box 327
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> Boulder, Colorado 80309
> Voice: 303-492-7080
> Fax: 303-492-8878
>
>
>
