Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:04:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Rodney Arthur McDanel <rmcdanel@jove.acs.unt.edu>
To: Sociology Graduate Students -- International <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: tracking
In-Reply-To: <97Jun22.210355edt.614-6@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970623083730.17544A-100000@jove.acs.unt.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Perhaps the best argument in support of tracking in terms of gender is
the assumption that "gender" means "female" and that the only issues
examined by gender scholars deal with feminism.  Properly, the field
examines both genders.  Look back at the current thread.  Some who have
posted have themselves unwittingly supported this assumption through, on
one side, implying that men could not possibly understand or appreciate
gender (women's) issues because they were men, and on the other side
arguing that men could understand women's issues.  Others have taken
different approaches, but all lead to the same station--gender=female.
Perhaps a more useful approach would be to recognize that gender is a much
broader field.  View gender in only feminist terms is extremely limiting.
Imagine if criminologists considered murder the only area of crime worth
studying.

Rod McDanel
UNT