This is a response to Robert Mann.  I have been on this list for awhile and
never written anything, but this conversation about "wimminsLib" and
"foreign lesbians" and saving science from such "political ideologies"
strikes me as ironic coming from someone who claims to believe that we need
more public debate about science.  Were you not the one who said:

[The realistic hope is that each scientist will at least become
informed on the public significance of their work.  Most don't.  Of the
minority who do, a minority of them will speak out.]

Isn't looking at how scienctific knowledge and institutions are implicated
in reproducing systems of discrimination part of the "public significance of
their work?"  And if not, why not?  On what grounds do you so flippantly
dismiss these issues as "politically correct ideologies" without engaging
the critiques you feel so comfortable trashing?  What could be more
"objective" and "scientific" than examining and acknowledging the ways in
which all scientific work is embedded in the societies in which it is
produced, with all the messiness and power politics that implies?  Why do so
many people think that they can "become informed about the public
significance of their work" by IGNORING the social and political
significance of their work?

I am not trying to be catty,although the tone of your e-mail makes it
difficult to have a rigorous and respectful conversation about science and
public awareness.  I am genuinely confused by this way of thinking.  Could
someone please explain it to me?

Yours in the struggle...

Jenrose Fitzgerald




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com