🚀 go-pugleaf

In reference to Jim Benenson's response to whomever referred to
feminist geography as BS, I'd agree with the admonition to watch
the language.

I am OFFENDED, however, by the assumption that anyone who bluntly
states his/her opinion is angry and threatened.  That air of
self-superiority is repugnant and self-serving.

When a scientist feels a body of work is flawed, then that
scientist should be allowed to express that view, without any
political-correctness police attempting to enforce obedience to
some "morality du jour."

I would have appreciated a reasoned critique of marxist and
feminist geography, although references to recent articles ARE
appreciated (I strongly disagree with whomever flamed Julio
?Rivera? -- I'm not sure and apologize for my impending senility
and short-term memory loss -- who provided a few references on
the topic).

I must also disagree with Benenson referring to empirical science
as a fantasy.  Empiricism may not work well when applied to the
study of culture (I'm not sure that is a valid assessment), but
it is STILL indispensible to the study of physical, or natural,
phenomena.

You cultural geographers tend to think you are the center of the
universe at times, writing voluminous diatribes on the nature of
geography while ignoring us physoids who are just a much a part
of the field.  When you claim empiricism is dead, as it may be
for you, you forget, or ignore, how useful it is to us.  If we
abandoned empiricism we'd still have four elements, the universe
would revolve around the earth, and adult organisms would develop
from miniatures embedded within sperm and ova.

Just some food for thought,

David Lawrence

dml2s@virginia.edu