Amy, Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day!
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. Andi > 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 > > > > > > > >
