[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

What I'm on about there is merely that if one is going to raise an issue like 'reducing the roles of women' I think he or she should be very careful to avoid the implication of misogyny, especially if it's not what one intends to say or imply.

Kane didn’t raise the issue of misogyny. In the discussion which you cite, Kane very clearly points out that he never raised an accusation of misogyny in his book and never speculated on Christopher Tolkien’s thoughts on any of the issues which Kane did raise. Kane seems to me to have been very careful in what he wrote. That can’t prevent others from making inferences, sometimes even wrong inferences (and possibly correct inferences). I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.

One might also claim that Christopher Tolkien should have avoided the implication of misogyny or that J. R. R. Tolkien should have avoided the implication of misogyny by including more women. Something called an implication may be in fact be only a reader’s inference, and even an unfounded inference. Yes, one should be careful in writing to avoid providing unintended ideas to the reader. Similarly one should avoid making unfounded inferences from what another debater claims. If I have done so, I apologize.

And you didn't raise the matter or present it, Doug Kane did of course; you simply referred to it briefly, and I invited readers here to see, at least in more detail, how Mr. Kane presented the issue, and his responses to Mr. Hostetter's points and opinions particularly (and others in the thread too of course).

That is fair enough. But your other comments appear to support Hofstetter’s side. So I commented. I don’t read the debate as a victory of Hofstetter. Others might, I suppose.

If you're not interested in the linked thread, or don't think it helps at all then that's fine. I assume other people might read this thread however, and maybe they might be interested.

Where did you get the idea that I was not interested? I commented on the thread. Being interested is not necessarily at all the same as being in agreement, sometimes quite the opposite. And, yes, I am inferring here.

That's not my contention, for the record.

You contended:

... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.

I am pleased that you are withdrawing this contention.

Ok, that's your opinion and characterization. No problem of course. And I'll let other readers here decide for themselves as well; again if they are interested in this particular matter.

Fair enough.