Replies after each paragraph

L Miller wrote:

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

I find it ad hominen, whether intended or not.

> 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

Come to NYC and look around. Or ask some NYC psychoanalysts. It is very obvious
that what I describe exists. I NEVER MEANT TO IMPLY THAT I WAS DESCRIBING ALL
SOCIAL WORKER PSYCHOANALYSTS.

Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.

>
> 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.