SWJ: praise given and reviews (merged)

[Rex Brynen]

I have no quarrel with the issue of differential impact of war, custom, and law on the two sexes. That is very, often very unfortunately, real. But I do object to the notion that there ought to be a separate field called "gender" studies. From where I sit, "gender" refers to the nature of words and endings in language - men and women are not different genders, they are different sexes.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think there is value in the interdisciplinary field when it is done well (which, as with all trendy academic topics, it often isn't). I also think the concept of gender (rather than biological) has considerable value in signaling the extent gender roles are cultural constructs and not some immutable function of biology.

[John T. Fishel]

mankind invented culture; mankind can change it

We clearly disagree on the less important things and agree on the ones I think are more important.

Cheers

JohnT

BTW that is the only thing he said in the course that I remember...

[marct]

You know, John, I've got to agree with Rex on this one; at least as far as the value of conceptually separating gender and sex are concerned. I also agree with Rex's caveat about interdisciplinary fields but, then, I'm biased - I teach in an Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies that has a Sexuality Studies minor !

As to whether or not "mankind invented culture; mankind can change it", I've got my doubts about that! (I know, heresy from a symbolic anthropologist!).

Back to the regularly scheduled discussion...

I've been involved in a lively set of exchanges on my blog, many of which center around the use of "anonymous" sources in journalism, anthropology, online communities and blogs. I've got a rough and ready way of weighting them, but I'd be interested in what other people think.