absolutely :) I think that, when faced with tons of data, as it usually happens
to qualitative researchers, any other topic of conversation seems more
attractive ;)
"Ferguson, Galit" wrote:
> Maybe this was all about not having to chat about qualitative software: mad
> relief etc.?
>
> ; )
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alessandra Iantaffi [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 9:41 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: VR, 'girls' and PC (not computers!)
> >
> > Alan,
> >
> > I have just re-read my message and I just realised that I do apologise
> > rather a
> > lot. it was not at all patronising to comment, on the contrary it made me
> > think.
> > Sometimes I think I apologise as an automatic reaction at having
> > displeased (is
> > this the right word?) someone, regardless of whether I think I am right or
> > not.
> > I remember that this does come up in some feminist literature, so I don't
> > feel
> > so alone :-)
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Alessandra Iantaffi
> >
> >
> > Alan Simpson wrote:
> >
> > > Alessandra,
> > >
> > > At the risk of being patronising I just want to say that you really
> > don't
> > > have to keep apologising for addressing something that matters to you
> > (and a
> > > lot of other people).
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > > Alan Simpson
> > > Brighton, UK.
> > >
> > > >From: Alessandra Iantaffi <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >Subject: Re: VR, 'girls' and PC (not computers!)
> > > >Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:36:08 +0100
> > > >
> > > >I am glad to see that all you men out there have taken no offence at my
> > > >comments. I apologise about the staying at home comment, it was not
> > meant
> > > >as
> > > >disparaging of people who make this choice (especially as I am
> > considering
> > > >leaving Academia and staying at home myself!), but as a 'teasing' of a
> > > >stereotype than many people have. Maybe my English is not as good as I
> > > >thought
> > > >and I apologise for my lack of sensitivity. I also have no idea what
> > 'Poms'
> > > >mean. If it mean English, well, I am not. If it means Italians, I am
> > sure
> > > >that
> > > >have been called worse things because of my nationality, so I shall
> > take no
> > > >offence either. It's good to see that you people can take things with
> > > >humour,
> > > >especially as I stressed the point that I did not want to offend
> > anybody.
> > > >By the
> > > >way 'grown women' was also used in a humorous way. I am sure that is
> > > >allowed
> > > >since Australians seem to have a special meaning for the word 'girls'.
> > I
> > > >shall
> > > >now retreat to silence once again and leave you boys to play. Ops did I
> > > >just say
> > > >that?
> > > >
> > > >Respectfully and jokingly,
> > > >
> > > >Alessandra Iantaffi
> > > >
> > > >p.s. Phil, just one last word. It was very 'big' of you to advocate
> > your
> > > >'academic expertise' to ridicule me and put me down. But then why am I
> > > >surprised
> > > >men have used this technique for centuries :-) No offence. And please
> > feel
> > > >free
> > > >to analyse this too.
> > > >
> > > >Peter French wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Phil
> > > > >
> > > > > Your comments are interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have a point but maybe Alexandra's comments may have resulted
> > from
> > > >her
> > > > > state as *grown*.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I am a rail commuter, I will attempt to find and *ungrown* woman
> > on
> > > >the
> > > > > way to the Institute. However I will be missing all of those who
> > *stay
> > > >at
> > > > > home*. But then, as you so rightly point out, those who stay at home
> > may
> > > >be
> > > > > *staying* but not really *at home*. If I do my research or direct my
> > > >staff
> > > > > from my study where is fact am I? This confusion may arise from the
> > fact
> > > > > that I have been a Distance Education student since 1960 and *home*
> > > >takes on
> > > > > many hues, and *staying at* is the basis of success. On the other
> > hand
> > > >it
> > > > > may arise from my lack of a liberal education as my undergraduate
> > > >degrees
> > > > > are in Accountancy, Industrial Engineering, and Banking & Finance.
> > > >Retiring
> > > > > to teaching after 30 years and 2 Masters may also be the cause....
> > > > >
> > > > > However one thing does cause me to worry - Alexandra must be the
> > first
> > > > > woman, who by her own admission and description, would rather be
> > > >regarded as
> > > > > older than younger ... the explanation for that escapes me, and my
> > > >growing
> > > > > group of amused friends.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter French
> > > > > Male, 56
> > > > > Australia
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Carverhill, Phil SDH <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 6:00 AM
> > > > > Subject: RE: VR, 'girls' and PC (not computers!)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alessandra . . .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Similar to your critique of Peter's comments, could you not write
> > > >things
> > > > > > like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alessandra Iantaffi wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >(yes, some grown women do work rather than staying at home)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could be interpreted with equal lack of sensitivity (and
> > stereotyping)
> > > >to
> > > > > > the fact that some women (and men btw) who 'stay at home' do so in
> > > >order
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be primary caregivers to children (is this not work! and very
> > > >important
> > > > > > work), or operate a home-based business (e.g., writing,
> > consulting,
> > > >etc.)
> > > > > or
> > > > > > other types of 'work' activities. They may not all be
> > acknowledged by
> > > >pay
> > > > > > (depending on the country), but nonetheless (unpaid) work. Being
> > a
> > > > > > discourse analyst I oriented to your particular choice of language
> > > >which
> > > > > > constructed a dichotomy between "work" ("rather than") and
> > "staying at
> > > > > > home". Some approaches to discourse analysis emphasize language as
> > > >social
> > > > > > action, and what we 'do' with our words. Case in point!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Respectfully,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil Carverhill
> > > > > > Canada
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Alessandra Iantaffi [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 7:11 AM
> > > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > > Subject: Re: VR, 'girls' and PC (not computers!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At the risk of sounding like a politically correct pain in the
> > neck
> > > >(which
> > > > > I
> > > > > > am,
> > > > > > by the way :-), could you not write things like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter French wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I like the 7 pound/hour girls someone mentioned the other day -
> > send
> > > > > them,
> > > > > > > to Australia when you are finished :-))
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Peter French
> > > > > > > Melbourne, Australia
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, Peter, but it really gets me to see things like that. A)
> > they
> > > >might
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > 'boys' or even grown men and women (yes, some grown women do work
> > > >rather
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > staying at home) B) I find it offensive, as a grown woman, to be
> > > >referred
> > > > > to
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > a 'girl' (and it does happen more often than I'd like, inspite of
> > a
> > > >very
> > > > > > respectable doctorate, a research fellowship and the appearance of
> > > >some
> > > > > > white
> > > > > > hair :). I am sure other do too.
> > > > > > Again, please don't take it personally, but I just couldn't keep
> > > >quiet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alessandra
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > ><< A.Iantaffi.vcf >>
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________________
> > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
> > << File: Card for Alessandra Iantaffi >>
|