Dr Eisman,

There's no trick involved...  nor is an ad hominem attack on you intended.

What I am trying to communicate, as tactfully as possible, is my take on
your comments--that your comments about women social workers who have
undergone psychoanalytic training, who are supported by husbands, etc etc
etc are gross generalizations, and smack of misogyny, and other
negativeness to me.  I sure don't know if there was some incident or
experience that stimulated these comments, maybe you could help us out with
that?  I am curious as to the vehemence of your comments.  I have not had
the experience that you describe and it is a mystery to me why/how you
would come to say the things that you have.  Louise



At 04:41 PM 12/30/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>L Miller wrote:
>
> > yes, and more--  I hear some postulation by Dr Eisman that "his" views are
> > "THE CORRECT" views, and that those with different educational levels and
> > or trainings are not valuable, nor do they have much to offer to inform
> > therapeutic practice as a whole.  Too bad...
> >
> > Dr Eisman, do you actually believe your words about women social workers
> > and psychoanalytic practices, their husbands and such?  What prompted this
> > outburst?  Louise
> >
>
> > Reply:
>
>You bet I do!. Please note that Cynthia Macdonald describes worse behavior
>in her
>post earlier today.You might ask her if she believes what she posted.
>
>You don't really think that anyone writing something you do not believe
>couldn't
>possibly be serious. What could more reflect belief in "THE CORRECT views"
>(your
>words) than such an assumption..
>
>I also find the old  trick of "what prompted this outburst" for any
>criticisms in
>rather bad taste. The idea that any criticism or description of bad
>behavior in
>the world of psychoanalysis has to be based on some personal
>psychopathology is
>transparently self-serving and quite anti-intellectual. No one takes this
>ancient
>canard seriously anymore.
>
>If psychoanalysis is to ever regain the respectability it once had, attacking
>critics with ad hominem arguments will have to stop.
>
>Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.