Watched "Love Crimes" With Fellow Feminists
sarah poirier
fortunate enough to spend it with my niece and her family in Halifax.
Being retired enabled me to visit them for an entire three weeks! We
had a "tofu turkey" this year, as my niece is now a vegetarian (vegan
really). I thought I would find it inedible, but was pleasantly
surprised.
I've mentioned in the past that my niece is also a feminist. Well,
she managed to track down a copy of "Love Crimes" for me and gave it
to me for a Christmas present. She, her feminist friends, and I all
sat down to watch it and had a very enlightening discussion
afterwards. I must say that it was a relief to be in the company of
those who agree with my analysis and see things from my point of
view. Judging by the responses to my intitial posts about the
spanking scene, I found myself half-questioning my own analysis. But
spending time with my lovely niece and her friends, and watching the
movie in its entirety has made me realize that I wasn't crazy afterall.
Richard Schultz
: . . . and watching the
: movie in its entirety has made me realize that I wasn't crazy afterall.
I have some really bad news for you. . .
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
le...@my-deja.com
Does Sean Young get spanked in the movie?
Tom Sutpen
> : . . . and watching the
> : movie in its entirety has made me realize that I wasn't crazy afterall.
>
> I have some really bad news for you. . .
*****
That's rather nasty, Signor Schultz. Woman comes in here to deliver a
report on her hollydays; I don't see what's so kee-ray-zee about that.
Tom Sutpen
Tom Sutpen
> > : . . . and watching the
> > : movie in its entirety has made me realize that I wasn't crazy afterall.
>
> > I have some really bad news for you. . .
>
> *****
> That's rather nasty, Signor Schultz. Woman comes in here to deliver a
> report on her hollydays; I don't see what's so kee-ray-zee about that.
*****
Just looked up some of Madame's earlier postings.
Strike the last statement.
Tom 'Sean Young was okay about 20 years ago, but . . . ' Sutpen
Stacia
> I've mentioned in the past that my niece is also a feminist. Well,
> she managed to track down a copy of "Love Crimes" for me and gave it
> to me for a Christmas present. She, her feminist friends
Thank goodness it's now a requirement for feminists to wear scarlet
Fs on their clothing, otherwise we'd be unable to recognize them by
sight.
Stacia
Offramp
> Well,
> she managed to track down a copy of "Love Crimes" for me and gave it
> to me for a Christmas present. She, her feminist friends, and I all
> sat down to watch it and had a very enlightening discussion
> afterwards. I must say that it was a relief to be in the company of
> those who agree with my analysis and see things from my point of
> view. Judging by the responses to my initial posts about the
> spanking scene, I found myself half-questioning my own analysis.
So at some point you agreed that Young deserved the spanking? Or what?
sarah poirier
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, Madame Sean Young was indeed spanked in this movie. Here is the
original clip that I posted:
http://www.punishmovies1.com/otk/otk2dj887f/b39.rm
I had argued that this movie serves to grant attention to an important
issue. After watching the movie, I am 100% convinced. Basically, the
movie serves to highlight the fact that even the strongest, most
competitive woman can be easily brought down to an inferior level by
bully males. It shows how men are unwilling to see women as their
equals, and how they will even treat them as mere children. The
spanking scene was the moment when this ultimate blasphemy towards
Madame Young's character was realized.
sarah poirier
Please do keep in mind that Madame Sean Young has likely been
suffering from the infestation of intestinal parasites. This would
play a major role in her ungraceful aging.
sarah poirier
Absolutely not. A woman never "deserves" a spanking. She might
deserve prison if she breaks the law. Basically she should be dealt
with the same way as a male transgressor. But in the case of this
movie, she was doing nothing wrong. Yes, she had a knife. But only
because she felt threatened, and was afraid.
What I meant about questioning my own analysis, was that I wondered if
I was placing too much significance on the spanking and what it
represented. But my niece and her very academic feminist friends
assured me that I wasn't over-emphasizing it at all. They were, dare
I say, angrier than I was. And this was upon viewing the movie in its
entirety, not just the clip by itself.
sarah poirier
You would like that, wouldn't you? To attempt to erradicate
enlightened women the way they did with the Jews in Germany. Men do
tend to think that way. They figure that if a group of people are a
threat, they should just do away with them. I find it interesting to
note that the Holocaust would never have occured if German had elected
a female leader.
Tom Sutpen
*****
That may be (I haven't seen the film you're referring to), but aren't
there other films you can cite that . . . I dunno . . . explore this
theme more . . . thoroughly?
I mean, obviously you like this movie and that's just swell, far as
I'm concerned. I think, however, you may, on the basis of this one
scene, be attributing more substance to it than its makers ever
intended.
By the way . . . do you have an opinion on Vic Morrow?
Tom 'It's worth asking once' Sutpen
Tom Sutpen
> > Thank goodness it's now a requirement for feminists to wear scarlet
> > Fs on their clothing, otherwise we'd be unable to recognize them by
> > sight.
>
> You would like that, wouldn't you? To attempt to erradicate
> enlightened women the way they did with the Jews in Germany. Men do
> tend to think that way. They figure that if a group of people are a
> threat, they should just do away with them. I find it interesting to
> note that the Holocaust would never have occured if German had elected
> a female leader.
*****
I'm not aware of any hard facts to support that statement; and God
knows the highest-ranking female in the Third Reich, Leni Riefenstahl,
didn't exactly go out of her way to oppose the Holocaust (in fact she
actively aided it).
And why do you assume our own Glitter Ninja is a guy?
Tom Sutpen
le...@my-deja.com
I remember all the original "spanking" threads, but I'd forgotten that
the film in question was LOVE CRIMES. Now I have to see it. Not least
because I looked it up on IMDB and learned that a good friend of mine
in high school, now a singer/actress, has a key supporting role in it.
sarah poirier
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now let me warn you that you must obtain the "unrated" version. The
"R" rated version cuts out several key scenes. My niece apparently
obtained it off Amazon. It never made it to DVD, and most video
stores do not carry it.
George Peatty
wrote:
>I'm not aware of any hard facts to support that statement; and God
>knows the highest-ranking female in the Third Reich, Leni Riefenstahl,
>didn't exactly go out of her way to oppose the Holocaust (in fact she
>actively aided it).
The only evidence for that is inferential. If you know differently, produce
it .. Riefenstahl is a lot of things .. not all of them good .. but she is
not a convicted war criminal ..
sarah poirier
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well the director, Lizzie Borden, is a notorious feminist, so I
wouldn't be surprised if I've interpretted the movie exactly as it was
meant to be. As an aside, however, my niece and her friends throughly
convinced me that reader/viewer interpretation holds just as much
weight as writer/director intent. In some ways, the "birth of the
viewer" is synonomous with the "death of the director." It's a very
empowering approach to reading and viewing.
I do not know of any other movies that cover this theme. From what I
can understand, Ms. Borden was ahead of her time, and the movie wasn't
well received. Never has spanking been portrayed in this context in
North American cinema. Of course if you want movies that simply
portray the mistreatment of women, almost anything you can think of
would do. And of course, the creators have no idea that this
mistreatment is a problem, as they are products of our society. By
and large, women are still second class citizens.
Vic Morrow? I'm afraid I don't have an opinion on him. Well, he's a
man. And it's my assumption that he held primitive views on women, as
most men do, especially men from earlier generations. Other than
hearing a rumor in one of my groups (possibly in here) that he's Sean
Young's father, I don't know anything about him. I do not believe
that rumor, by the way, as I could find nothing to verify it.
Tom Sutpen
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 06:25:47 -0800 (PST), Tom Sutpen <tomsut...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm not aware of any hard facts to support that statement; and God
> >knows the highest-ranking female in the Third Reich, Leni Riefenstahl,
> >didn't exactly go out of her way to oppose the Holocaust (in fact she
> >actively aided it).
>
> The only evidence for that is inferential. If you know differently, produce
> it .. Riefenstahl is a lot of things .. not all of them good .. but she is
> not a convicted war criminal ..
*****
True, she was never convicted . . . or formally charged. The evidence
against her, in 1945, was such that no charge could be sustained. The
Allies found that, while she aided the Nazis, she did not aid them in
a sufficiently material sense to warrant her prosecution. They didn't
know what we know now; they were unaware that she had knowingly used
captive Gypsies as both slave labor and background extras for her film
'Tiefland' (all of whom wound up in Auschwitz). The non-inferential
documentation for that surfaced after she'd been essentially cleared.
Read Steven Bach's recent biography if you want the full story on all
of it. He makes the case (and I think he's probably right) that if
everything we know now was known then, she might not have faced the
ultimate penalty as a war criminal, but she would almost certainly
have done time as a collaborator.
Tom Sutpen
George Peatty
wrote:
>They didn't know what we know now; they were unaware that she had
>knowingly used captive Gypsies as both slave labor and background
>extras for her film 'Tiefland' (all of whom wound up in Auschwitz).
In the first place, this is unsupported with evidence. In the second, while
it is contemptible and arguably criminal, it does not make her either a war
criminal or a collaborator ..
Kingo Gondo
"Tom Sutpen" <toms...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6d46376-b358-4832...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 1:12 pm, George Peatty <peattyg47-1...@copper.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 06:25:47 -0800 (PST), Tom Sutpen <tomsut...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not aware of any hard facts to support that statement; and God
>> >knows the highest-ranking female in the Third Reich, Leni Riefenstahl,
>> >didn't exactly go out of her way to oppose the Holocaust (in fact she
>> >actively aided it).
>>
>> The only evidence for that is inferential. If you know differently,
>> produce
>> it .. Riefenstahl is a lot of things .. not all of them good .. but she
>> is
>> not a convicted war criminal ..
>
> *****
> True, she was never convicted . . . or formally charged. The evidence
> against her, in 1945, was such that no charge could be sustained. The
> Allies found that, while she aided the Nazis, she did not aid them in
> a sufficiently material sense to warrant her prosecution. They didn't
> know what we know now; they were unaware that she had knowingly used
> captive Gypsies as both slave labor and background extras for her film
> 'Tiefland' (all of whom wound up in Auschwitz).
You know (to stray from the subject a bit), this is the kind of thing that
bothered me while watching the otherwise enjoyable Munchhausen. When the
good baron was with the sultan, who had a large detail of black
guards/servants, I turned to my SO and said "I wonder how many of those guys
were gassed before the war ended?"
Such are the perils of watching Nazi films, I guess--that such questions
even make "sense".
steve
(history) and "mistressbate" (masturbate...I know, it's "mastur" not
"master" but I swear didnt make this one up) crowd? Arent you chicks hell
bent on purging the language of anything that even sounds masculine?
I think a good spanking is in order.
steve
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
le...@my-deja.com
Just for the record, Vic Morrow was Jennifer Jason Leigh's father. I
don't know how his name came up in connection with Sean Young. As far
as I know, they never acted together--he was killed on the TWILIGHT
ZONE set before Sean Young's acting career began. And any rumor about
him being Sean's father probably originated from some joker here. Now,
did Morrow ever spank Jennifer Jason Leigh? Not on film, of course,
but perhaps in real life. No one but Jennifer would know and she ain't
tellin'.
sarah poirier
>
> - Show quoted text -
Regarding real life spanking and Love Crimes, I came across something
today that regards the two of them. Apparently, during the filming of
Love Crimes, Patrick Bergin and Sean Young were not getting along.
She was strong and dominant, and refused to allow him to push her
around. So what did he do about it? Well, being the coward and bully
that he is, he took advantage of what was supposed to be a staged
spanking scene. That's right, he hit her much harder than he needed
to just to retaliate. And of course, there was nothing at all she
could do about it. Men seem to be experts at exploiting situations
and using it to their own advantage. As a result, many violent
incidents against women are never reported, or are not taken seriously
when they are reported.
Tom Sutpen
> "Fellow Feminists"? Doesnt that get you into trouble with the "herstory"
> (history) and "mistressbate" (masturbate...I know, it's "mastur" not
> "master" but I swear didnt make this one up) crowd? Arent you chicks hell
> bent on purging the language of anything that even sounds masculine?
*****
Steve (duuuude . . . *long* time no speaks),
What's up with Madame's spank-silly preoccupation; and why is she
presenting it here? I don't quite see its cinematic application.
Good point on the 'Fellow Feminists' line; clearly a transgression of
acceptable terminology that fully warrants a rebuke from the Central
Committe. I hear there are Feminists who actively monitor Usenet
groups, you know; cyber huntresses on the prowl for deviationism and
antiquarian patriarchical whatchamacallits.
The monitor for this newsgroup, I'm told, is a Ms. Pamela Dean. Ms.
Poirier, you'll be hearing from her soon. My heart swells with pity
for you.
For the record, I too have heard the 'mistressbate' construction. I
couldn't believe anyone would actually come up with a thing like that,
but hear it I did.
Tom Sutpen
Tom Sutpen
> Please do keep in mind that Madame Sean Young has likely been
> suffering from the infestation of intestinal parasites. This would
> play a major role in her ungraceful aging.
*****
Intestinal parasites? You mean her agents??
Tom Sutpen
Tom Sutpen
> I do not know of any other movies that cover this theme. From what I
> can understand, Ms. Borden was ahead of her time, and the movie wasn't
> well received. Never has spanking been portrayed in this context in
> North American cinema.
*****
I can think of one American film that explores the theme of spanking
in a more forthright and progressive manner than any film I've ever
seen: 'McLintock!' (1963)
Now, don't just take my word for it. In her 2003 book 'Dames: Gender
Politics, Ur-Feminism and the Emerging Framework of Global Patriarchy
and Monetarism in the Era of the Hollywood Studio System', Prof.
Constance Lane (Chair of the Womyn's Studies Department at Tait
College in Culver City, CA) writes with great perception about the
symbology of spanking in 'McLintock!':
"We have already seen that a defining practice of relational space of
a different sort is necessary to impose an interpretation on the more
traditional practice of Spanking in a feminist context within
'McLintock!'. On the other hand, relational information as to the
constituent structure provided in the final reel raises serious doubts
about the extended sequence discussed in connection with this theme in
'Donovan's Reef'. To provide a constituent structure for Kate's
subjugation over George Washington McLintock's knee, any associated
supporting element is, apparently, determined by an abstract
underlying patriarchical order. From there, it naturally follows that
this selectionally introduced contextual feature appears to correlate
rather closely with an intestinal parasitic construction that a deeper
analysis may not withstand. Of course, in a deeper analysis this
systemic use of complex symbols cannot be arbitrary in nondistinctness
in the sense of distinctive, gender-specific or even Marxist film
theory."
I think that puts it succinctly, don't you?
Tom Sutpen
Stacia
>On Jan 7, 8:36 am, sarah poirier <s_poirier_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Thank goodness it's now a requirement for feminists to wear scarlet
>> > Fs on their clothing, otherwise we'd be unable to recognize them by
>> > sight.
>>
>> You would like that, wouldn't you? To attempt to erradicate
>> enlightened women the way they did with the Jews in Germany. Men do
>> tend to think that way.
See, this is why I should stop making jokes about my cock being bigger
than everyone else's. But good job on Godwinning your own thread just a
few posts in, "sarah".
>And why do you assume our own Glitter Ninja is a guy?
It's entirely my fault, I'm sure. I shouldn't go by such a masculine
name.
Stacia
--
Visit my blog at http://www.shebloggedbynight.com
steve
On 8-Jan-2008, Tom Sutpen <toms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve (duuuude . . . *long* time no speaks),
Hi Tom. I see your quite active here lately. We need the sanity. Hang
around this time..please.
So you've decided to leave the intellectual inbreds of film commentary to
wallow in thier own filth and to rejoin the just-plain-folks (sort of) of
RAMP-F? About time! : ^ ))
>
> What's up with Madame's spank-silly preoccupation; and why is she
> presenting it here? I don't quite see its cinematic application.
She's one of the more amusing trolls to invade our space. More like a troll
straight man, giving us the opportunity to supply the jokes.
"It's never OK to spank a woman."
"Yea? What if she's been naughty?"
> The monitor for this newsgroup, I'm told, is a Ms. Pamela Dean. Ms.
> Poirier, you'll be hearing from her soon. My heart swells with pity
> for you.
I can no longer see the name "Vic Morrow" without laughing to myself.
> For the record, I too have heard the 'mistressbate' construction. I
> couldn't believe anyone would actually come up with a thing like that,
> but hear it I did.
Feminists have done a great job of making themselves look silly. Just a
guess, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that they ARE
silly.
Later, Tom.
Anim8rFSK
<2cf10453-988e-4d56...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Tom Sutpen <toms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 1:15 pm, sarah poirier <s_poirier_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I do not know of any other movies that cover this theme. From what I
> > can understand, Ms. Borden was ahead of her time, and the movie wasn't
> > well received. Never has spanking been portrayed in this context in
> > North American cinema.
>
> *****
> I can think of one American film that explores the theme of spanking
> in a more forthright and progressive manner than any film I've ever
> seen: 'McLintock!' (1963)
We watched that on TCM a few days ago. There's a bit I'm unclear on.
When Pat Wayne first spanks Stephanie Powers (and is this the only role
she did NOT have red hair in, and it's the role that needed it the
most?), Wayne stops him and puts a fireplace implement in his hand; my
assumption was that it was to keep the guy's bare hand off the woman's
buttocks, which made sense.
But then at the end, when John Wayne goes to spank Maureen O'Hara, Pat
interrupts him and hands him an identical implement (luckily the chase
ended right in front of a blacksmith or something) in an obvious
reference to the earlier spanking, but since Wayne has no reason NOT to
lay his hand on his wife's bottom, the message THIS time seems to be
"make sure to hurt her badly" or maybe it's "hurt her butt, not your
hand"
Any thoughts?
--
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is in hand. Doesn't work. Yet. :(
David Oberman
>Now, don't just take my word for it. In her 2003 book 'Dames: Gender
>Politics, Ur-Feminism and the Emerging Framework of Global Patriarchy
>and Monetarism in the Era of the Hollywood Studio System', Prof.
>Constance Lane (Chair of the Womyn's Studies Department at Tait
>College in Culver City, CA) writes with great perception about the
>symbology of spanking in 'McLintock!':
>
<snip>
>
>I think that puts it succinctly, don't you?
Honestly, what people won't do for a job.
____
Et à la fin, j'ai été baisé par le président de la République."
-- Maurice Bowra, to Cocteau, who "did not bat an eyelash" (E. Wilson)
Tom Sutpen
> Hi Tom. I see your quite active here lately. We need the sanity. Hang
> around this time..please.
*****
'Tis my intention.
(hope everything's well with you and yours, amigo)
> So you've decided to leave the intellectual inbreds of film commentary to
> wallow in thier own filth and to rejoin the just-plain-folks (sort of) of
> RAMP-F? About time! : ^ ))
*****
Wellll . . . let's say I got out of it before every door was closed
and bolted forever; also before my ability to write a decent sentence
of english terminated entirely. I started out with zero confidence in
my skills; three years and about 15 articles later I was left
with . . . something less than zero. Now, if I could only lose my foul
ambition I'd be a-ok.
> > What's up with Madame's spank-silly preoccupation; and why is she
> > presenting it here? I don't quite see its cinematic application.
> She's one of the more amusing trolls to invade our space. More like a troll
> straight man, giving us the opportunity to supply the jokes.
*****
You said it. I never thought I'd get as good a chance to do my faux-
academic film theory pastiche as the one she gave me this morning.
I must thank her for that.
> "It's never OK to spank a woman."
>
> "Yea? What if she's been naughty?"
*****
Having never spanked anyone, I'm not certain what the allure could be,
but I don't think it's the most nuanced view to say that it's always
an act of aggression, in every instance, no matter what. There are, as
in all things, degrees (I know she's going to pillory me as a hopeless
neanderthal for this, but it's the only view on the matter that seems
least divorced from reason).
> > The monitor for this newsgroup, I'm told, is a Ms. Pamela Dean. Ms.
> > Poirier, you'll be hearing from her soon. My heart swells with pity
> > for you.
>
> I can no longer see the name "Vic Morrow" without laughing to myself.
*****
Yes, she worked wonders for ol' Vic's memory, Our Pamela did.
Wonder what she's doing now.
> > For the record, I too have heard the 'mistressbate' construction. I
> > couldn't believe anyone would actually come up with a thing like that,
> > but hear it I did.
>
> Feminists have done a great job of making themselves look silly. Just a
> guess, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that they ARE
> silly.
*****
Dunno if I'd put it in such sweeping terms, but certainly some of the
more exotic Feminist theories (which are often little more than
schoolteachers generating course material) have more than a shade of
zaniness to them (I've dated a couple of hardcore feminists, so I'm a
little gunshy about rejecting the ethos entirely, you see).
Tom Sutpen
le...@my-deja.com
Tom, this is almost as good as the IN SADDLE/OUT SADDLE/SIDE SADDLE
Johnny Mack Brown/James Whale gag from a few months ago. If it wasn't
for the "intestinal parasitic" reference, I would have thought it was
real. You're brilliant. You deserve a spanking--from Sean Young! ;)
le...@my-deja.com
It's not just men, honey. You should read Errol Flynn's account of a
scene he did with Bette Davis in ELIZABETH AND ESSEX (1939), in which
she had to slap him. And she did. For real. In every take! And he
finally did something about it. (I think he spanked her.)
And when Spielberg got his AFI Life Achievement Award, Christian Bale
got up and told about shooting a scene for EMPIRE OF THE SUN (1987) in
which a woman character slaps him. And did it for real. And Bale, who
was a child then, complained to Spielberg who assured him it wouldn't
happen again. Next take: real slap! Complain to Stevie Boy again,
another reassurance, another take, another real slap. You get the
idea.
Actors (and directors) are not normal people, Sarah baby.
Stacia
>> Hi Tom. I see your quite active here lately. We need the sanity. Hang
>> around this time..please.
>'Tis my intention.
It's always bothered the everliving fuck out of me that you're so
closely allied with a sexist, pederastic prick like steve. Why, man? I
don't know if you care or not, but ever since you made it clear that you
thought steve's opinion was superior to others, it's made it really hard
for me to trust you. You usually hide your sexist, anti-female side until
steve shows up, then you two wallow in this lengthy "aren't women silly!"
dialogue in some kind of misguided male bonding.
Everyone has their flaws, certainly, but a competent film critic should
at least understand with various philosophies, even if they disagree with
them. When you and steve get to talking, I worry that you don't
understand a thing about women's history, women's perspective, feminism,
etc.
>Dunno if I'd put it in such sweeping terms, but certainly some of the
>more exotic Feminist theories (which are often little more than
>schoolteachers generating course material)
Got a site for that, Sparky?
>have more than a shade of zaniness to them
Every movement has a fringe element. If you're going to label an entire
philosophy, belief, religion, etc. on the fringe element, then I have to
wonder *why*. Is it ignorance of what feminism is about, or a desire to
discredit feminism?
I mean, surely you've at least Googled for this "mistressbate" you and
steve are so keen on using to prove that "all women are silly". Well, no,
I guess you didn't, because if you had you'd see mostly porn sites, people
using the word for forum names, and a couple of puns. "Mistressbate" and
"feminism" comes up with 184 hits, NONE of them on feminist sites.
I just wish you'd think about it, Tom. Seriously. steve's a lost
cause, he's an egotistical hater, but I think you're different.
steve
On 8-Jan-2008, sta...@xmission.com (Stacia) wrote:
> I mean, surely you've at least Googled for this "mistressbate" you and
> steve are so keen on using to prove that "all women are silly".
This is you all over, stacia. I dont think, nor have I ever said or implied
that "all women are silly". You work hard to take what I say and read
things into it that arent there.
And even if I concede that "mistressbate" is not a feminist invention,
feminists are still stuck with nonesense like "herstory" (which Ive
seen/read feminists using), and "all sex is rape", "date rape", comparable
worth, glass ceiling, 69 cents of female salary for every mans salary
dollar, etc. etc. Feminism is nuts because it isnt based on any sound
foundation.
So..do I think all women are silly? No. Do I think most feminists are
silly? Absolutely.
Cindy Hamilton
> On Jan 7, 9:20 am, Tom Sutpen <tomsut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 8:28 am, sarah poirier <s_poirier_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 9:28 pm, le...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 6, 4:32 pm, sarah poirier <s_poirier_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Well, I trust that you have all had a lovely holiday season. I was
> > > > > fortunate enough to spend it with my niece and her family in Halifax.
> > > > > Being retired enabled me to visit them for an entire three weeks! We
> > > > > had a "tofu turkey" this year, as my niece is now a vegetarian (vegan
> > > > > really). I thought I would find it inedible, but was pleasantly
> > > > > surprised.
>
> > > > > I've mentioned in the past that my niece is also a feminist. Well,
> Vic Morrow? I'm afraid I don't have an opinion on him. Well, he's a
> man. And it's my assumption that he held primitive views on women, as
> most men do, especially men from earlier generations. Other than
> hearing a rumor in one of my groups (possibly in here) that he's Sean
> Young's father, I don't know anything about him. I do not believe
> that rumor, by the way, as I could find nothing to verify it
I don't suppose you could stop calling yourself a feminist, could you?
You're giving us old-time feminists a bad name.
If you have a lesbian crush on Sean Young, just say so. It's ok.
Cindy Hamilton
Manfred Polak
>>They didn't know what we know now; they were unaware that she had
>>knowingly used captive Gypsies as both slave labor and background
>>extras for her film 'Tiefland' (all of whom wound up in Auschwitz).
>
>In the first place, this is unsupported with evidence.
It is well supported with evidence by historians. In 2002 Riefenstahl
was forced by a German court decision to recant her claims that
all those Gipsies had survived the war.
Manfred
Stacia
Wikipedia says the case was never pursued in court, citing the Trimborn
book as the source. I haven't read it, so I'm unsure.
The catch, of course, is that Riefenstahl chose extras who were being
held in concentration camps, although she claims she didn't know they were
going to be sent to Auchwitz and murdered. I don't find that a compelling
argument, though, because she still used people who were being imprisoned
by the Nazis simply because of their race and culture. It's immoral, any
way you slice it.
Stacia
> "mistressbate" (masturbate...I know, it's "mastur" not
> "master" but I swear didnt make this one up)
Maybe you were talking to a feminist who can't spell any better than
you can. Your creative spellings of "Merna Loy" and "Hillery" and
"appearences" and "chemestry" just add a whole new level to your claim
that some "silly feminists" don't know the difference between "mastur"
and "master".
Stacia
Tom Sutpen
> It's always bothered the everliving fuck out of me that you're so
> closely allied with a sexist, pederastic prick like steve. Why, man? I
> don't know if you care or not, but ever since you made it clear that you
> thought steve's opinion was superior to others, it's made it really hard
> for me to trust you.
*****
But I didn't. I don't. Saying Hi to Steve (who I haven't communicated
with even by email for over a year and a half) isn't meant to be an
endorsement of . . . anything. There's an awful lot of things Steve
and I disagree about, but I've never let that stand in the way of
liking anyone (or disliking them even if I agree with their
worldview). I don't consider myself allied with anybody, to be honest
(who would have me?). If people are nice to me I'm nice to them.
(pederastic??)
> You usually hide your sexist, anti-female side until
> steve shows up, then you two wallow in this lengthy "aren't women silly!"
> dialogue in some kind of misguided male bonding.
*****
But you're assuming, as a matter of course, that I *am* sexist and
anti-female. You've gotta look at my remarks in context. I'm sure
Sarah Poirier is a very nice person and all, but . . . her
preoccupation with Spanking and Sean Young is (I think you'll agree) a
little bit wacky and, I suspect, a lot closer to what governs her
posts here than the Feminist conviction she cloaks them in. Doesn't
mean I reject Feminism as a cause or as a movement or even as a body
of ideals. I don't. I never have. I may have reservations (sometimes
serious reservations) with this or that element, as I have
reservations about any number of things I otherwise believe in, but
that doesn't represent a fundamental rejection in principle.
> Everyone has their flaws, certainly, but a competent film critic should
> at least understand with various philosophies, even if they disagree with
> them. When you and steve get to talking, I worry that you don't
> understand a thing about women's history, women's perspective, feminism,
> etc.
*****
Well, I'll freely confess that my understanding of women is no better
than any man's; and I fear that limitation is something the male of
the species is forever heir to. But, again, you're making an
astounding leap from that into condemning me for a rank mysoginist,
which I'm not.
You know, part of the problem of charges like this is that denying
them is at least an admission that they *could* be true; you're
already halfway to confessing guilt even if you're totally innocent.
By the way . . . I never claimed to be a competent film critic. I am
what I is, whatever that might be. And if you asked other critics,
they'll tell you I don't even qualify as human.
> >Dunno if I'd put it in such sweeping terms, but certainly some of the
> >more exotic Feminist theories (which are often little more than
> >schoolteachers generating course material)
>
> Got a site for that, Sparky?
*****
Obviously not. It's my personal theory. Not of Feminism, however, but
of the academic enterprise in general. It's a phenomenon you see in
every area of Social Science and the Humanities, absolutely fueled by
cut-throat competition among schoolteachers. The only road to success
in that arena is through publishing, and if you've got, say, a hundred
other Women's Studies or African-American Studies or even Film Studies
professors you're trying to stand out among, then you'd better cough
up something arresting. That mandate can lead to some really screwy
results, but they aren't a reflection on the discipline (not to me
anyway), they're a hazard of the process.
> >have more than a shade of zaniness to them
>
> Every movement has a fringe element. If you're going to label an entire
> philosophy, belief, religion, etc. on the fringe element, then I have to
> wonder *why*. Is it ignorance of what feminism is about, or a desire to
> discredit feminism?
*****
But I wasn't!! I was commenting on Ms. Poirier's determination to
justify her wholly personal fixation on Spanking in lofty Feminist
terms. It wasn't even a rejection of *fringe* elements in the Feminist
movement. You're reading WAY WAY too much into this.
> I mean, surely you've at least Googled for this "mistressbate" you and
> steve are so keen on using to prove that "all women are silly". Well, no,
> I guess you didn't, because if you had you'd see mostly porn sites, people
> using the word for forum names, and a couple of puns. "Mistressbate" and
> "feminism" comes up with 184 hits, NONE of them on feminist sites.
> I just wish you'd think about it, Tom. Seriously. steve's a lost
> cause, he's an egotistical hater, but I think you're different.
*****
I didn't say it was widely in use; all I said was I'd heard the term
before. One of the trends in feminism of the late 80s/early 90s (and I
don't know if this sprang out of the academy or not) was the gender
neutralization of language; modifying it to remove the patriarchical
echoes, etc. The most famous example of this was the idea of
substituting a Y in place of the A in 'Woman', or the E in 'Women'. It
never really caught on, and I don't think anyone's using it today, but
a number of modifications were proposed back then, one of which was
'Mistressbate'. I heard it. That was all I meant.
Listen, I really have no wish to upset you (and I believe you're as
upset about this as you say you are). From now on I'll just keep my
mouth shut. I apologize if I offended you; seriously.
Tom Sutpen
Stacia
> But I didn't. I don't. Saying Hi to Steve (who I haven't communicated
> with even by email for over a year and a half) isn't meant to be an
> endorsement of . . . anything.
Except you weren't just saying hi. I'm not interested in who you
email or who your personal friends are; sorry if I gave that
impression.
I thought about this for a bit during dinner today and I finally
realized what I should have understood previously, that I'm not
responsible for, nor really affected by, what you and/or steve think.
You two can talk about the widespread, silly, feminist use of
"mistressbate" all you want, of course, it's none of my concern. I'm
on ramp-f to talk about movies, read the opinions of those I respect,
joke about a bit, and basically enjoy myself... that's what *should*
have been my one concern all along.
Feel free to disregard anything I've said to you about the
issue(s). It's entirely unimportant.
Stacia
steve
On 9-Jan-2008, Tom Sutpen <toms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (pederastic??)
You havent been around lately, Tom, so you probably dont know this. It's
become fashionable among my less scrupulous detractors to call me a
pederast/pedophile because I freely admit to finding girls sexually
attractive as soon as they show the visual signs of sexual maturity
(generally starting about age 13). Beyond that acknowledgement of natures
plan, the ugly accusations are entirely gratuitous. It's shameful behavior
on their part, basically.
steve
On 8-Jan-2008, Stacia <glitte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe you were talking to a feminist who can't spell any better than
> you can. Your creative spellings of "Merna Loy" and "Hillery" and
> "appearences" and "chemestry" just add a whole new level to your claim
> that some "silly feminists" don't know the difference between "mastur"
> and "master".
"Spelling...that's where the real money is."
From "Roseanne"
sarah poirier
This thread is getting very difficult to follow and I've fallen behind
given that I've been so busy following the primaries. What a victory
for Hillary last night! Women came out to support her en masse. This
was very inspiring for me, and I feel proud to be a woman.
Just want to touch on the intestinal parasite comment. Some of you
seem to take it as a joke. I urge you to think again. Please check
out this website so that you can learn about the importance of this
issue:
http://www.appliedozone.com/parasites.html
There are countless other websites to search, as well. I had
mentioned a while back that the manner in which Madame Young has aged
suggests that she has and/or continues to battle parasites. The lines
on her face and her mannerisms are those of a person who is
chronically sleep-deprived. Sleep deprivation is a major symptom of
infection with parasites, and parasites are starting to be blamed for
previously unexplained sleep deprivation. Bernard Sanders is the only
American politician to date whom I can think of who has actually
mentioned this issue.
Tom Sutpen
> This thread is getting very difficult to follow and I've fallen behind
> given that I've been so busy following the primaries. What a victory
> for Hillary last night! Women came out to support her en masse. This
> was very inspiring for me, and I feel proud to be a woman.
*****
So I take it you fully support the blood-drenched insanity of a
fundamentally immoral and obscene war in Iraq? Because she's already
pledged to maintain a more or less permanent military presence over
there (albeit "more effectively"; which always means more efficient
destruction). And I take it you also have no qualms about supporting a
conflict with Iran, either; since Sen. Clinton has stated that such an
action is within the scope of admissible options for her. Tell me, is
the promise of another four years of mindless slaughter really your
idea of progress, or is it that American imperialism just doesn't
matter in the face of bright, shiny, empty symbolism?
Never ceases to amaze me how bloodthirsty people who claim to be on
the Left can be.
Tom Sutpen
Kingo Gondo
"Stacia" <glitte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a635103d-3774-4bb6...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
This entire thread makes me want to buy a bong again.
No Man
> I don't suppose you could stop calling yourself a feminist, could you?
> You're giving us old-time feminists a bad name.
See, I think that's the idea. She's a wrang-wrang, like Joe McCarthy and
little Dubyah. Their lot in life is to render their positions so
ridiculous as to become repellent. In more literate times, the technique
was used to present counter-arguments, such as Doubt in holy circles, by
means of weakly defending the establishment view. Today we have Borat.
And Spanky and her gang.
"Fellow Feminists" is a giveaway. Just a bunch of guys soaking up suds
around Hooters.
--
What English-language poet has not at times rebelled against a language
in which the suffix -s makes a noun plural and a verb singular? - W H Auden
Cindy Hamilton
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > I don't suppose you could stop calling yourself a feminist, could you?
> > You're giving us old-time feminists a bad name.
>
> See, I think that's the idea. She's a wrang-wrang, like Joe McCarthy and
> little Dubyah. Their lot in life is to render their positions so
> ridiculous as to become repellent. In more literate times, the technique
> was used to present counter-arguments, such as Doubt in holy circles, by
> means of weakly defending the establishment view. Today we have Borat.
> And Spanky and her gang.
>
> "Fellow Feminists" is a giveaway. Just a bunch of guys soaking up suds
> around Hooters.
Well, even if she's a real person, I didn't expect her to give it up
on my
request.
Hooters has Internet? Kewl.
Cindy Hamilton
Kingo Gondo
"Cindy Hamilton" <angelica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7d2eba6-7591-4e0a...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
Hooters has Internet? Kewl.
Cindy Hamilton
I don't know about Hooters, although there is one not more than 2500 feet
from where I am now sitting, but when I went to Amsterdam there were some
coffeehouses with internet access. THAT could be "kewl".
No Man
> You two can talk about the widespread, silly, feminist use of
> "mistressbate" all you want, of course, it's none of my concern.
The immortal Dickens began a paragraph about the Artful Dodger thusly:
"In came Master Bates, with his hands in his pockets."
And Tom Sutpen is merely the character who arrived in Jefferson with a
hundred slaves and a wagon full of goods and built up Sutpen's Hundred
then lost it all when he was scythed by a hired man whose daughter had
just born Stupen's child. Killed them, too. You know the last member of
that withered tribe, a skittish idiot scampering away from the burned
mansion? Jim Bond.
Man From Nowhere, it was, if I'm not mistaken.
Tom Sutpen
> > But I didn't. I don't. Saying Hi to Steve (who I haven't communicated
> > with even by email for over a year and a half) isn't meant to be an
> > endorsement of . . . anything.
>
> Except you weren't just saying hi. I'm not interested in who you
> email or who your personal friends are; sorry if I gave that
> impression.
*****
That wasn't the impression I got. If anything, I'm mystified why you
would leap to those conclusions about my basic character on evidence
that's not exactly all-encompassing (a little like assuming someone
speaks German because you heard them say 'Gezundheit').
Be that as it may, I don't think your anger is at all illegitimate,
which is why I took such pains to account for myself in this thread.
> I thought about this for a bit during dinner today and I finally
> realized what I should have understood previously, that I'm not
> responsible for, nor really affected by, what you and/or steve think.
> You two can talk about the widespread, silly, feminist use of
> "mistressbate" all you want, of course, it's none of my concern.
*****
Where did you hear me say it was widespread; by feminists or anybody??
I heard the term once, maybe twice; years and years ago. I had totally
forgotten it until Steve mentioned it the other day. That doesn't
qualify as 'widespread' under any known definition.
And you have every right to be outraged by whatever you find
outrageous. I just don't think my words added up to what you were
making of them (if they had, I'd be the first to cop to it).
I'm
> on ramp-f to talk about movies, read the opinions of those I respect,
> joke about a bit, and basically enjoy myself... that's what *should*
> have been my one concern all along.
*****
Well, we all get sidetracked :) .
> Feel free to disregard anything I've said to you about the
> issue(s). It's entirely unimportant.
*****
No. It's not unimportant. Not to me. You ought to know that by now. If
it was Gaza, or some random poster raising the roof, I wouldn't spend
five seconds trying to explain myself, because it wouldn't matter to
me.
Tom Sutpen
Tom Sutpen
> See, I think that's the idea. She's a wrang-wrang, like Joe McCarthy and
> little Dubyah. Their lot in life is to render their positions so
> ridiculous as to become repellent. In more literate times, the technique
> was used to present counter-arguments, such as Doubt in holy circles, by
> means of weakly defending the establishment view. Today we have Borat.
> And Spanky and her gang.
*****
I considered that at first; figuring this was something on the order
of Gaza's old Coco Washington persona. But the 'intestinal parasites'
bit is too arcane and (more importantly) not vivid enough to be an
effectively looney tool of discreditation. It's certainly far too
labyrynthine to be called subtle. If this were a fake-o feminist out
to make real feminists look bad we'd be hearing about making abortions
mandatory, detention cams for sexual harassers; that kind of thing.
No, I think we gots someone with . . . issues, who can only give them
ventilation through feminist cant. Not a for-real feminist, but not a
wrang-wrang either.
> "Fellow Feminists" is a giveaway. Just a bunch of guys soaking up suds
> around Hooters.
*****
Hooters is sooo Red State.
Tom Sutpen
No Man
> *****
> I considered that at first; figuring this was something on the order
> of Gaza's old Coco Washington persona. But the 'intestinal parasites'
> bit is too arcane and (more importantly) not vivid enough to be an
> effectively looney tool of discreditation. It's certainly far too
> labyrynthine to be called subtle. If this were a fake-o feminist out
> to make real feminists look bad we'd be hearing about making abortions
> mandatory, detention cams for sexual harassers; that kind of thing.
> No, I think we gots someone with . . . issues, who can only give them
> ventilation through feminist cant. Not a for-real feminist, but not a
> wrang-wrang either.
Okay, Colonel, let's play it this way there then now.
A virus very cleverly disguises its agents as messengers from the cell,
RNA, which is an intricate means utilized by commies and such.
Infiltration of trade unions. Can we now assign volition to the lowly
virus? One need not be conscious of what a wrang-wrang is to perform
perfectly as one.
The natural evolution of design and strategem is within the force of the
carousel. I'm always saying that about Mulholland Dr. The elephants go
up and down but it isn't in their plan to do so. Likewise, a politician
never says to herself, I believe this and shall evermore state it
thusly. No, that self-promoter very pragmatically says, what is my
advantage in stating thusly?
And so we have just explained the tragedy in the Middle East. A bubble
boy wants to do what daddy done to be a hero with high poll numbers who
nobody can gainsay because he's a Warp Resident. His followers across
the aisle likewise say, oh, look how our boys were savaged when they
failed to follow his daddy, hat in hand. So they proclaimed as fierce
warlord parrots.
Do you think this Romney truly believes in his soul that god came down
to anoint some prophet with golden tablets? It's a question he never has
considered, I'm sure. He merely says, as do we all, what is it to me to
say I believe this?
The range of possibilities in proclaimed Feminists must of course have
an extreme edge, and that far reach is where the hunters of strawgirls
seek their arguments. (My brother as a very expert baiter of Baptists
savored the foamy-mouthed fundies most of all.) And so a strange one
with cracked notions out along the fringe draws out by my count two
feminists now in open debate, whereas what I figured was a very
worthwhile question some time back about the ridicule of stereotypes by
gender drew nary a one. For they prefer to seek their arguments in
Hooters, you see.
As do we all.
Kingo Gondo
"Tom Sutpen" <toms...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b42a8339-4ec4-4442...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 9, 4:19 pm, No Man <woes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > See, I think that's the idea. She's a wrang-wrang, like Joe McCarthy and
> > little Dubyah. Their lot in life is to render their positions so
> > ridiculous as to become repellent. In more literate times, the technique
> > was used to present counter-arguments, such as Doubt in holy circles, by
> > means of weakly defending the establishment view. Today we have Borat.
> > And Spanky and her gang.
>
> *****
> I considered that at first; figuring this was something on the order
> of Gaza's old Coco Washington persona.
That was Gaza's zenith. It's been all downhill since then.
Kingo Gondo
"Welcome baaaack...."
Stacia
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > I don't suppose you could stop calling yourself a feminist, could you?
> > You're giving us old-time feminists a bad name.
>
> See, I think that's the idea. She's a wrang-wrang, like Joe McCarthy and
> little Dubyah. Their lot in life is to render their positions so
> ridiculous as to become repellent.
Do you think it's as sophisticated as that? I suspect "sarah" and
others of her ilk are often trolling, because they think what they're
writing is as inherently funny to everyone as it is to them. Many are
alternate accounts of regulars - I can recall specific examples from
LiveJournal and similar blogging sites. Some are probably people who
just want to create an identity online but choose one they have no
hope of emulating well.
Either way, I'm sure "sarah" is a fake, which is what my "scarlet F"
comment was about. Not that s/he actually understood what I meant by
it.
Stacia
Stacia
> And so a strange one
> with cracked notions out along the fringe draws out by my count two
> feminists now in open debate, whereas what I figured was a very
> worthwhile question some time back about the ridicule of stereotypes by
> gender drew nary a one. For they prefer to seek their arguments in
> Hooters, you see.
Am I one of the "two feminists"? If so, you're way off the mark.
Stacia
steve
On 10-Jan-2008, Stacia <glitte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am I one of the "two feminists"? If so, you're way off the mark.
>
> Stacia
So...are you saying you're not a feminist?
If not, why do you take such offense when I attack feminist rhetoric?
steve
Tom Sutpen
> Tom, this is almost as good as the IN SADDLE/OUT SADDLE/SIDE SADDLE
> Johnny Mack Brown/James Whale gag from a few months ago. If it wasn't
> for the "intestinal parasitic" reference, I would have thought it was
> real. You're brilliant. You deserve a spanking--from Sean Young! ;)
*****
Wowee. Thank you very much. It's the sort of thing that used to piss
people off in other forums, but I have a weakness for such jests from
time to time.
I'm trying to think . . . would I want a spanking from Sean Young
(since she probably looks more like Sean Connery these days)? Hmmmm.
Don't think so. But I reserve the right to change me mind upon closer
inspection.
Thanks again!
Tom Sutpen
Tom Sutpen
> Okay, Colonel, let's play it this way there then now.
*****
You've gotta admit, it's awfully flattering to have two Harvard
undergraduates sitting up till all hours of the night reconstructing
your life . . . and without once hitting the bong (unless Faulkner cut
that part)!
> A virus very cleverly disguises its agents as messengers from the cell,
> RNA, which is an intricate means utilized by commies and such.
> Infiltration of trade unions.
*****
I agree. I saw 'The Red Menace' many years ago and every frame of it
has stayed with me.
> Can we now assign volition to the lowly
> virus? One need not be conscious of what a wrang-wrang is to perform
> perfectly as one.
*****
Ah, well there's where you have me. I thought you were saying that Our
Ms. Sarah is a consciously-motivated derision magnet (like the
aforementioned creator of Coco Washington).
An independent agent, bereft of volition, is a horse of a different
methodology.
> The natural evolution of design and strategem is within the force of the
> carousel. I'm always saying that about Mulholland Dr. The elephants go
> up and down but it isn't in their plan to do so.
*****
Well, I always say "The dust blows forward and the dust blows back".
But I suppose it's the same principle . . . in principle.
Of course, all I remember about 'Mulholland Drive' are the, um, action
scenes.
> Likewise, a politician
> never says to herself, I believe this and shall evermore state it
> thusly. No, that self-promoter very pragmatically says, what is my
> advantage in stating thusly?
*****
But enough about Sen. Clinton . . .
> And so we have just explained the tragedy in the Middle East. A bubble
> boy wants to do what daddy done to be a hero with high poll numbers who
> nobody can gainsay because he's a Warp Resident. His followers across
> the aisle likewise say, oh, look how our boys were savaged when they
> failed to follow his daddy, hat in hand. So they proclaimed as fierce
> warlord parrots.
*****
This assumes there was ever a change in our policy towards Iraq
between 1991 and 2003. There was certainly a few shifts in Saddam
Hussein's usefulness to us as a Hitler 'du jour', but the policy
toward the country has always been the same: Enforced economic misery.
> Do you think this Romney truly believes in his soul that god came down
> to anoint some prophet with golden tablets? It's a question he never has
> considered, I'm sure. He merely says, as do we all, what is it to me to
> say I believe this?
*****
It means two-thirds of the country (at least) will think he's nuts;
*provided* they give it a moment's thought.
> The range of possibilities in proclaimed Feminists must of course have
> an extreme edge, and that far reach is where the hunters of strawgirls
> seek their arguments. (My brother as a very expert baiter of Baptists
> savored the foamy-mouthed fundies most of all.) And so a strange one
> with cracked notions out along the fringe draws out by my count two
> feminists now in open debate, whereas what I figured was a very
> worthwhile question some time back about the ridicule of stereotypes by
> gender drew nary a one. For they prefer to seek their arguments in
> Hooters, you see.
*****
They also seek hooters; those who seek arguments in Hooters.
At least that's what I'm told. I ain't never been in one (none in my
area).
Well, you've done a fine job deconstructing the process of a usenet
troll, albeit a not-entirely conscious one. The question remains,
however: By what degree of self-awareness does one achieve the status
of Troll? Can Ms. Poirier truly join the ranks of Great Trolls of Our
Times if she's not aware of what she's doing?
Tom 'My real name, believe it or not' Sutpen
Anim8rFSK
<3b5e1aaa-af38-4dde...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
le...@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Jan 7, 1:15 pm, sarah poirier <s poirier 1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 9:20 am, Tom Sutpen <tomsut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 7, 8:28 am, sarah poirier <s poirier 1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 6, 9:28 pm, le...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jan 6, 4:32 pm, sarah poirier <s poirier 1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Well, I trust that you have all had a lovely holiday season. I was
> > > > > > fortunate enough to spend it with my niece and her family in
> > > > > > Halifax.
> > > > > > Being retired enabled me to visit them for an entire three weeks!
> > > > > > We
> > > > > > had a "tofu turkey" this year, as my niece is now a vegetarian
> > > > > > (vegan
> > > > > > really). I thought I would find it inedible, but was pleasantly
> > > > > > surprised.
> >
> > > > > > I've mentioned in the past that my niece is also a feminist. Well,
> > > > > > she managed to track down a copy of "Love Crimes" for me and gave
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > to me for a Christmas present. She, her feminist friends, and I
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > sat down to watch it and had a very enlightening discussion
> > > > > > afterwards. I must say that it was a relief to be in the company
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > those who agree with my analysis and see things from my point of
> > > > > > view. Judging by the responses to my intitial posts about the
> > > > > > spanking scene, I found myself half-questioning my own analysis.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > spending time with my lovely niece and her friends, and watching
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > movie in its entirety has made me realize that I wasn't crazy
> > > > > > afterall.
> >
> > > > > Does Sean Young get spanked in the movie?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > Yes, Madame Sean Young was indeed spanked in this movie. Here is the
> > > > original clip that I posted:
> >
> > > >http://www.punishmovies1.com/otk/otk2dj887f/b39.rm
> >
> > > > I had argued that this movie serves to grant attention to an important
> > > > issue. After watching the movie, I am 100% convinced. Basically, the
> > > > movie serves to highlight the fact that even the strongest, most
> > > > competitive woman can be easily brought down to an inferior level by
> > > > bully males. It shows how men are unwilling to see women as their
> > > > equals, and how they will even treat them as mere children. The
> > > > spanking scene was the moment when this ultimate blasphemy towards
> > > > Madame Young's character was realized.
> >
> > > *****
> > > That may be (I haven't seen the film you're referring to), but aren't
> > > there other films you can cite that . . . I dunno . . . explore this
> > > theme more . . . thoroughly?
> >
> > > I mean, obviously you like this movie and that's just swell, far as
> > > I'm concerned. I think, however, you may, on the basis of this one
> > > scene, be attributing more substance to it than its makers ever
> > > intended.
> >
> > > By the way . . . do you have an opinion on Vic Morrow?
> >
> > > Tom 'It's worth asking once' Sutpen- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Well the director, Lizzie Borden, is a notorious feminist, so I
> > wouldn't be surprised if I've interpretted the movie exactly as it was
> > meant to be. As an aside, however, my niece and her friends throughly
> > convinced me that reader/viewer interpretation holds just as much
> > weight as writer/director intent. In some ways, the "birth of the
> > viewer" is synonomous with the "death of the director." It's a very
> > empowering approach to reading and viewing.
> >
> > I do not know of any other movies that cover this theme. From what I
> > can understand, Ms. Borden was ahead of her time, and the movie wasn't
> > well received. Never has spanking been portrayed in this context in
> > North American cinema. Of course if you want movies that simply
> > portray the mistreatment of women, almost anything you can think of
> > would do. And of course, the creators have no idea that this
> > mistreatment is a problem, as they are products of our society. By
> > and large, women are still second class citizens.
> >
> > Vic Morrow? I'm afraid I don't have an opinion on him. Well, he's a
> > man. And it's my assumption that he held primitive views on women, as
> > most men do, especially men from earlier generations. Other than
> > hearing a rumor in one of my groups (possibly in here) that he's Sean
> > Young's father, I don't know anything about him. I do not believe
> > that rumor, by the way, as I could find nothing to verify it.
>
> Just for the record, Vic Morrow was Jennifer Jason Leigh's father. I
> don't know how his name came up in connection with Sean Young. As far
> as I know, they never acted together--he was killed on the TWILIGHT
> ZONE set before Sean Young's acting career began.
Well, no. Sean had a couple films under her belt by then, including
STRIPES, and two more came out the year Morrow died, including Blade
Runner. In fact, you could (perhaps uncharitably but not inaccurately)
say that Sean's career had PEAKED before Morrow died.
Pamela Dean said so.
And any rumor about
> him being Sean's father probably originated from some joker here. Now,
> did Morrow ever spank Jennifer Jason Leigh? Not on film, of course,
> but perhaps in real life. No one but Jennifer would know and she ain't
> tellin'.
--
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is in hand. Doesn't work. Yet. :(
Stacia
> On 10-Jan-2008, Stacia <glitterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Am I one of the "two feminists"? If so, you're way off the mark.
>
No Man claimed two feminists in this thread ignored his "worthwhile"
comments while choosing instead to deal with sarah and her "cracked
notions". I'm saying that characterization, if it was directed at me,
is incorrect. Until I started using Google Groups, I never saw No
Man's posts, so I ignored nothing from him. Further, I haven't
actually addressed sarah in any capacity except to make fun of her.
No Man's lofty "people never want to address my very worthy posts"
claim is bogus.
Stacia
Richard Schultz
: No Man's lofty "people never want to address my very worthy posts"
: claim is bogus.
Well, you know how people from Ithaca can be.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
No Man
> No Man's lofty "people never want to address my very worthy posts"
> claim is bogus.
Where do you find all that straw? Here is the thread. I report; you
decide how this rates with either spanking or intestinal parasites as a
feminist issue.
Q: Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on
a world map. Why do you think this is?
A: I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because,
um, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I
believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh,
the Iraq and everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should,
uh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should
help South Africa and should help Iraq and the Asian countries, so we
will be able to build up our future.
David Johnston
>Stacia wrote:
>
>> No Man's lofty "people never want to address my very worthy posts"
>> claim is bogus.
>
>Where do you find all that straw? Here is the thread. I report; you
>decide how this rates with either spanking or intestinal parasites as a
>feminist issue.
>
>Q: Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on
>a world map. Why do you think this is?
>
Because a fifth of Americans can't get anything right.
No Man
> Because a fifth of Americans can't get anything right.
So you're saying 80% of Americans can get something right? I think
that's extremely optimistic.
You might say a TV program is a success if twenty million watch it. I
say the headline should be all about the two hundred and eighty million
who tuned it out.
David Johnston
>David Johnston wrote:
>
>> Because a fifth of Americans can't get anything right.
>
>So you're saying 80% of Americans can get something right?
It depends on the something.
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
> Stacia wrote:
>
> > No Man's lofty "people never want to address my very worthy posts"
> > claim is bogus.
>
> Where do you find all that straw? Here is the thread. I report; you
> decide how this rates with either spanking or intestinal parasites as a
> feminist issue.
>
> Q: Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on
> a world map. Why do you think this is?
I still want to know how a poll shows that. What did they do, ask them
if they could find the US on a map, and 1 person in 5 said 'no'?
--
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is in hand. Doesn't work. Again.
Billing is all wrong. Again.
Avoid at all costs.
David Oberman
>I still want to know how a poll shows that. What did they do, ask them
>if they could find the US on a map, and 1 person in 5 said 'no'?
Baffling, no? What gives with these polls? We live in the Age of the
Questionnaire. I think it was foisted on us by sociologists.
Remember, Fred, that "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless
gum for their patients who chew gum."
That fifth dentist tells his patients: "If you want to chew gum, chew
it with sugar." He must be the "margin of error" I've heard tell
about.
____
The music fits the poetry so well that one really
can say that they are both a pair of boring sisters."
-- Beethoven, to Gleichenstein, on Archduke Rudolph's new work (1810)
Stacia
> > Q: Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on
> > a world map. Why do you think this is?
>
> I still want to know how a poll shows that. What did they do, ask them
> if they could find the US on a map, and 1 person in 5 said 'no'?
And what was it a map of? If it wasn't labeled and color-coded like
the maps we used in grade school, well, that's going to confuse a lot
of people.
Stacia
No Man
> I still want to know how a poll shows that. What did they do, ask them
> if they could find the US on a map, and 1 person in 5 said 'no'?
Seems pretty rudimentary, there, partner. Show them a world map. Say,
locate the US. Count the ones who point to the right land mass. Even
them pollsters in New Hamster could work this one out.
No Man
> You've gotta admit, it's awfully flattering to have two Harvard
> undergraduates sitting up till all hours of the night reconstructing
> your life . . . and without once hitting the bong (unless Faulkner cut
> that part)!
I heard a whole passel of undergrads at that university once spent all
their time worrying about how to connect teenage girls electronically.
And I'm very impressed you are familiar with the Dixie Special. Although
I could never figure out why a story about "Would you want your sister
to marry one?" is named for a disloyal son of David who ends up hung by
his hair. I wish a couple of Harvard undergrads would report back on
that one.
> Ah, well there's where you have me. I thought you were saying that Our
> Ms. Sarah is a consciously-motivated derision magnet (like the
> aforementioned creator of Coco Washington).
That had occurred to me. But I suggest a position may be taken up due
strictly to a calculation of the effects on others.
>By what degree of self-awareness does one achieve the status
> of Troll? Can Ms. Poirier truly join the ranks of Great Trolls of Our
> Times if she's not aware of what she's doing?
Great question. The very greatest speech of all time is the funeral
oration of Marc Antony in Julius Caesar. It begins with the fake Uriah
Heep humble gambit (I am no speaker, as Brutus is) to Lower
Expectations, it continues with fawning (All honorable men) which it
contrasts with known fact (Hmnnn, you all did see on the Luprecal I did
thrice present Caesar with a kingly crown, which he did three times
refuse? Was this ambition?) , then edges into irony once Marc is sure
his audience is with him, and then explodes into rage so that the mob
swarms after the skedaddling conspirators.
That's a great speech.
Now, the Bard obviously sought his source in Plutarch, as do we. And you
know how this event of Marc Antony turning the mob happened according to
the historian? Some days after the assassination, Antony notices the
reaction of the onlookers when he inadvertently made visible the rented
cloak of Caesar. He decided to go with it, being very ambitious and
seeing all sorts of possibilities there.
In one case, you have cynical volition, in the other, mere opportunity.
However, the results are the same; the conspirators are routed.
So, is the OP a provocateur, and if so, does she intend to shock or has
she just always been rewarded with attention for airing out her goofy
themes? Or, the very last and least possibility, does she truly believe
spanking is a major issue for Feminists?
Richard Schultz
: Remember, Fred, that "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless
: gum for their patients who chew gum."
:
: That fifth dentist tells his patients: "If you want to chew gum, chew
: it with sugar." He must be the "margin of error" I've heard tell
: about.
Um, no, he tells his patients to stop chewing gum altogether. It's a
disgusting habit (at least as practiced by 90% of the people who indulge
in it), and I'm with that one.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I've lost my harmonica, Albert."
David Oberman
>Um, no, he tells his patients to stop chewing gum altogether. It's a
>disgusting habit (at least as practiced by 90% of the people who indulge
>in it), and I'm with that one.
Judith Martin agrees with you that it is disgusting in company. But
chewing gum does have some health benefits: 1) The gum cleans the
surface of your teeth as you chew. 2) It stimulates the flow of
saliva, which helps digestion, acid neutralization, & fighting
decay-causing bacteria. Many people with Irritable Bowel Syndrome chew
peppermint gum because the peppermint oil helps soothe bloating &
spasm.
Richard, be careful at the gym if you're chewing gum! When you use
certain strength-training equipment or free weights, the muscles of
your jaw or throat can lock or constrict during the exercise movement,
making you inadvertently swallow or partially swallow your gum. If you
are in the gym & you see a compadre turning purple, appearing to choke
or not take in a breath, or making the universal "choking" sign, it's
quite probably because he has partially swallowed his gum.
Richard Schultz
: sch...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:
:>Um, no, he tells his patients to stop chewing gum altogether. It's a
:>disgusting habit (at least as practiced by 90% of the people who indulge
:>in it), and I'm with that one.
:
: Judith Martin agrees with you that it is disgusting in company.
I should have been more clear: I mean that I believe that people should not
chew gum in public. What they do in private is none of my business.
: Richard, be careful at the gym if you're chewing gum!
Since I obviously don't chew gum, this is not a problem for me.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .but even if it was an error, it had nevertheless a sort of grandeur. . ."
--Franz Kafka, "Investigations of a Dog"
Cindy Hamilton
Jesus wept! All you have to do is look for Florida or Michigan or
something
and vaguely circle your finger around that continent. It's not rocket
science.
Cindy Hamilton
Anim8rFSK
David Oberman <doberman@etc.> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >I still want to know how a poll shows that. What did they do, ask them
> >if they could find the US on a map, and 1 person in 5 said 'no'?
>
> Baffling, no? What gives with these polls? We live in the Age of the
> Questionnaire. I think it was foisted on us by sociologists.
>
> Remember, Fred, that "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless
> gum for their patients who chew gum."
>
> That fifth dentist tells his patients: "If you want to chew gum, chew
> it with sugar." He must be the "margin of error" I've heard tell
> about.
yep. The 5th guy can't even be saying "don't chew gum at all you
nitwit" because that's specifically excluded by the original statement,
which makes you wonder if 95 out of 100 said 'no gum' in the first place.
You know, I vaguely remember a 'Straight Dope' on this . . .
hah! there it is:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_174a.html
4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum. What does the 5th recommend?
Dear Cecil:
For years those sugarless gum commercials have said, "Sugarless gum is
recommended by four out of five dentists for their patients who chew
gum." What does the fifth dentist recommend? Gum with sugar? --Elizabeth
E., Towson, Maryland
Cecil replies:
Oh, sure, Elizabeth, why not? It's like tire dealers scattering tacks on
the road.
Fact is, the fifth dentist usually recommended no gum at all. Not the
kind of advice a chewing-gum company wants to play up real big.
The Warner-Lambert Company, makers of Trident sugarless gum,
commissioned a market research firm to survey dentists in July 1976.
The research people came up with a list of 1,200 dentists who were
supposed to represent a cross-section of their profession. The dentists
were asked what they recommended to their gum-chewing patients--sugared
gum, sugarless gum, or no gum at all.
Sugarless gum won with 85 percent. Nobody seems to remember exactly how
many votes sugared gum got, but I figure there had to be at least one.
Cast by the same guy that in a real election always votes for Donald
Duck.
--CECIL ADAMS
Anim8rFSK
<774b0cb8-dbf7-46dc...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Stacia <glitte...@gmail.com> wrote:
But if they're showing people maps and asking them to point out stuff on
them, I'd argue that that's not a 'poll' to start with.
