Let me ring-in with a "100% for!" I echo Cindy Hale's assertions,
especially that no apologies need be made for a legitimate (and much
needed) topic merely because it upsets the status quo. I am, of course,
assuming that such "upset" is the reason for your colleagues' negative
response, because I can think of no legitimate objection to your subject
selection. Along this line, I would be interested to know *why* objections
were raised (if any of them advanced beyond an emotional response) and if
you have gotten any negative responses from women.
Also, let's nip this in the bud: men talking about men and women talking
about women would *NOT* be OK. We women have proven we can learn about the
men, and I'm sure the men are intelligent enough to grasp women's
contributions to the field.
Stick-to-it! (Yes, sometimes easier said than done, but please accept all
the encouragement I can muster.)
Press on, all.
Cynthia M. Galloway <c-galloway at TAMUK.EDU> wrote in article
<9702191629.AA01503 at sunlib.tamuk.edu>...
>...I asked some of my male advisees what they thought about the idea and
it was 100% against! They said maybe if the women talked about women and
the men talked about men it would be okay but, they still didn't like the