From jfgannon@cloud9.net Sun Feb 21 08:29:33 1999 Received: from mxu4.u.washington.edu (mxu4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.2+UW99.01/8.9.2+UW99.01) with ESMTP id IAA19962 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:29:33 -0800 Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net (russian-caravan.cloud9.net [168.100.1.4]) by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id IAA19618 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:29:32 -0800 Received: from default (jfgannon.dialup.cloud9.net [168.100.203.180]) by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5DEEF763A3 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:29:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D03458.5445@cloud9.net> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:29:12 -0500 From: "J.F. Gannon" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: classics@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: Women in Greece and Rome References: <199902211556.KAA01010@umailsrv2.umd.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit But let's focus on how we communicate with colleagues in > other disciplines first. > Probably good advice in general. Classicists should know about the importance of peithw. There seem to be two plausible views here, and certainly they are polar opposites. One is that this particular Women's Studies group were either wholly indifferent to scholarship or chiefly interested in its abuse. If so, they would probably not be worth working with. After reading SW I was inclined to take that view. But JH takes a more charitable view, and there may indeed merely be some misundertandings on their part at the root of their attitude. I must say that when I read the course proposal I found it unexceptionable except for the reference to 'feminist methodologies'--I really do not know what that means, but perhaps that supports JH's point that there is ignorance around here and there. So I would agree with her request that JB provide any further information that might be helpful, since the question has been raised and fairness can now be best served by disclosure. J.F. Gannon .