Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:08:11 -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: <970623201131_590440729@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970624090239.9951A-100000@jove.acs.unt.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 Ologygrad@aol.com wrote:

You are quite correct, I am implicated right along with everyone else..and
please note that I acknowledged that in my post.  You are also quite
correct about male vs. men, female vs. women...I actually used men and
women rather than male and female, then rewrote it because of the awkward
way it seemed to read.  Perhaps that tells us something...we are sometimes
more concerned how something sounds or reads than with whether or not it
is accurate.

Rod McDanel

 > Rod wrote:
> << 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. >>
> 
> Point taken -- however, your last sentence implicates you with the rest of
> us.  Viewing gender in *feminist* terms is not the same as focusing only on
> women.
> 
> Since I'm being picky about terminology, I'll also point out that "female"
> and "male" are terms that denote the study of sex (aka, biology).  When one
> studies gender sociologically, one studies "men" and "women."
> 
> Ivy Kennelly
> U Georgia
>