a little balance
Emma Whelan
Since all of the women in the group have been told not to take the sexist
quotations seriously, I'll say the same to the men regarding the
following quotations about sexism and sexual harassment...
I wonder, would any of you tell people of colour to relax if
a member of this newsgroup posted racist quotations? I had just begun to
get interested in this newsgroup, but I think I'll follow others' lead and
make my exit now. There is too much sexism and misogyny in the real world
for me to be interested in sexist quotations, thanks very much, and I'm
similarly uninterested in participating in cyberspaces that promote and
condone sexism and misogyny. Clearly, women are not respected by some
subscribers to this newsgroup. Perhaps the men in question need to
examine why they feel such hatred toward women that they feel the need to
post SO MANY obnoxious quotations explicitly designed to offend the few
women that venture into this group, even after women have objected to the
quotations repeatedly. Perhaps the quotation about women being "short on
courage" is really a case of projection by a man who has insecurites about
the shortness of some part of his bodily anatomy...Congratulations, boys,
for alienating so many of us that we're leaving in droves. Maybe you can
get the internet, until recently one of the last bastions of patriarchy,
back after all.
"A learned woman is thought to be a comet, that bodes mischief whenever it
appears." - Bathsua Makin
"Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as
good. Luckily, this is not difficult." - Charlotte Whitton
"Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men;
they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with
absolute truth." - Simone de Beauvoir
"To overhear a bull session is traumatic to a woman: so all this time she
has been considered only 'ass,' 'meat,' 'twat,' or 'stuff,' to be gotten
'a piece of,' 'that bitch,' or 'this broad' to be tricked out of money or
sex or love!" - Shulamith Firestone
"The new Virility School in twentieth-century literature is in itself a
direct response, indeed a male cultural backlash, to the growing threat to
male supremacy - Virility, Inc., a bunch of culturally deprived 'tough
guys,' punching away to save their manhood." - Shulamith Firestone
"It seems to me that male fear and envy of women's sexual and reproductive
power is taken to the level of mythical misogyny when its basis in fact is
not recognized. There are real differences between men and women which
can give rise to reasonable curiosity and even anxiety or jealousy...These
feelings are normal and need not give rise to fearful images of serpents
hiding in vaginas. But they might if they are not acknowledged, if they
are repressed." - Mariana Valverde
"The feelings that [sexism] provokes in women are denied (doesn't she have
a sense of humor?), ridiculed (what's YOUR problem, honey?), or
minimized." - Anne Innis Dagg and Patricia J. Thompson
"Harassment has been and still is a particularly difficult problem for
women to know how to handle, because the very naming by women of some
behavior as 'sexual harassment' is often treated as though it were a form
of violence against men, an intrusion on men's rights. As a consequence,
a woman who dares to apply this label risks incurring still more wrath and
harassment in addition to being treated as though SHE is the problem."
- Paula J. Caplan, emphasis in original
"...sometimes a joke may be prefaced with 'You girls probably won't like
this joke,' perhaps as a way of excusing one's self. However, such a
comment makes it difficult for a woman and others to oppose the joke. It
also communicates to women that the speaker does not care if they are
offended...When women indicate their displeasure at joking remarks that
express aggression toward individual women or toward women as a group, the
rejoinder is often, 'Can't you take a joke?' or 'Don't you have a sense of
humor?' - remarks aimed at making the woman feel that SHE is at fault,
rather than the person who offended her."
- Bernice Sandler and Roberta M. Hall - emphasis in original
*********************************************************************
Emma Whelan <ewh...@chat.carleton.ca>
Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa
"Abandon learning, and you will be free from trouble and distress."
- Lao Zi
*********************************************************************
Harald Johnson
The fact that some people post quotes that women might not like is no
reason for the said women to feel offended.
The quotes were not written by the posters and are not their personal
opinion (I'm speaking for myself, of course!).
They are posted as a point of interest and, possibly, to start a
little debate.
If I posted something negative about egoist or anything negative about
any other personal trait, what would you think if these people got
upset and ran storm? They would become a laughing stock. That's
exactly what some of the women are doing here.
Re the one about "Long dresses and little courage" (Yes, I was the one
who sent it in. So what?), I feel one could ask oneself, why did this
proverb come into being? After all it's an historical proverb. Forget
your stupid "political correctness" for a second! There are more
important things in life.
But go ahead, gals. Leave! You know where the door is! If you can
only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
PS----Did like your quotes and all, though! Interesting!
Harald
----------
On 21 May 1998 22:15:50 GMT, ewh...@chat.carleton.ca (Emma Whelan)
wrote:
>
>Since all of the women in the group have been told not to take the sexist
>quotations seriously, I'll say the same to the men regarding the
>following quotations about sexism and sexual harassment..
<biggish snippo>
"It is better to weep with wise men than to laugh
with fools." ----- Spanish Proverb
http://www.tou.com/host/harald/index.html
------------
Collages; Funny Typos and Strange Cuttings;
Quotes.
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on 21 May 1998 22:15:50 GMT,
ewh...@chat.carleton.ca (Emma Whelan) wrote:
>I wonder, would any of you tell people of colour to relax if
>a member of this newsgroup posted racist quotations? I had just begun to
>get interested in this newsgroup, but I think I'll follow others' lead and
>make my exit now.
Don't do that, Emma. Stay, and we'll roast their bums
over a slow fire, using their heids for fuel. Much
more satisfactory! :-)
=margaret
..........................................................
Margaret Tarbet
Cambridge Massachusetts USA
tar...@swaa.com
..........................................................
"The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is almost
more interesting than the history of emancipation itself"
- Virginia Woolf, 1933
Frank Lynch
Harald Johnson wrote:
> The fact that some people post quotes that women might not like is no
> reason for the said women to feel offended.
>
> The quotes were not written by the posters and are not their personal
> opinion (I'm speaking for myself, of course!).
>
> They are posted as a point of interest and, possibly, to start a
> little debate.
>
> If I posted something negative about egoist or anything negative about
> any other personal trait, what would you think if these people got
> upset and ran storm? They would become a laughing stock. That's
> exactly what some of the women are doing here.
Then Harald, play devil's advocate on the other side every once in a while.
That way I'd know that you were posting only for effect.
> But go ahead, gals. Leave! You know where the door is! If you can
> only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
I disagree. I appreciate the diversity that everyone brings here, and am
sorry that people get offended.
Frank
--
The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page is at:
http://www.users.interport.net/~frankl/index.html
Daniel P. B. Smith
In article <3565ca30...@194.97.97.21>,
Harald Johnson <h.jo...@ndh.net.remove> wrote:
>The fact that some people post quotes that women might not like is no
>reason for the said women to feel offended.
>
>The quotes were not written by the posters and are not their personal
>opinion (I'm speaking for myself, of course!).
>
>They are posted as a point of interest and, possibly, to start a
>little debate.
Harald? Harald? What funny sort of name is that? Ho, ho, just joshing,
don't take it personally. It's Bulgarian, of course. People with
Bulgarian names are always so sensitive and humorless.
"Bulgarians, B*nd had always known, are inherently stupid and muscular.
Lacking the intelligence to be criminal masterminds in their own right,
they usually ended up as hired thugs."--I*n Fl*ming, "Alligator" (A
Harvard Lampoon parody.
Mind you, that's a quotation. It's not my personal opinion, of course.
I'm just posting it because I'm amused by it and also to stir up a little
debate.
"If you have a Bulgarian for a friend, you don't need an enemy." --Albert
Szent-Gyorgyi.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbs...@world.std.com
Jo Ann Malina
Emma Whelan (ewh...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
: Since all of the women in the group have been told not to take the sexist
: quotations seriously, I'll say the same to the men regarding the
: following quotations about sexism and sexual harassment...
: I wonder, would any of you tell people of colour to relax if
: a member of this newsgroup posted racist quotations? I had just begun to
: get interested in this newsgroup, but I think I'll follow others' lead and
: make my exit now. There is too much sexism and misogyny in the real world
: for me to be interested in sexist quotations, thanks very much, and I'm
: similarly uninterested in participating in cyberspaces that promote and
: condone sexism and misogyny. Clearly, women are not respected by some
: subscribers to this newsgroup. Perhaps the men in question need to
: examine why they feel such hatred toward women that they feel the need to
: post SO MANY obnoxious quotations explicitly designed to offend the few
: women that venture into this group, even after women have objected to the
: quotations repeatedly. Perhaps the quotation about women being "short on
: courage" is really a case of projection by a man who has insecurites about
: the shortness of some part of his bodily anatomy...Congratulations, boys,
: for alienating so many of us that we're leaving in droves. Maybe you can
: get the internet, until recently one of the last bastions of patriarchy,
: back after all.
Don't go, Emma. Just skip Harald's crap, I do. (If he ever posted a
non-misogynistic quote, I wouldn't see it. But there's too much good
stuff around to bother sifting through the rubbish.)
Thanks for all the good quotes, anyway.
--
Jo Ann Malina, jma...@hooked.net
I like to write when I feel spiteful; it's like having a good sneeze.
-- D. H. Lawrence
AWILBANKS
Harald Johnson wrote:
>
> The fact that some people post quotes that women might not like is no
> reason for the said women to feel offended.
>
> The quotes were not written by the posters and are not their personal
> opinion (I'm speaking for myself, of course!).
>
> They are posted as a point of interest and, possibly, to start a
> little debate.
>
> any other personal trait, what would you think if these people got
> upset and ran storm? They would become a laughing stock. That's
> exactly what some of the women are doing here.
>
> who sent it in. So what?), I feel one could ask oneself, why did this
> proverb come into being? After all it's an historical proverb. Forget
> your stupid "political correctness" for a second! There are more
> important things in life.
>
> only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
>
>
> Harald
You speak only for youself, not for the newsgroup. If I say things
that give people offense, regardless of how I meant them, I am sorry
for having said them. A little civility might be useful. There is
a danger that a few people will pollute the water that all of us drink.
--
Tony Wilbanks
Dallas TX
Graham Weeks
Frank Lynch wrote:
>
> Harald Johnson wrote:
>
> > But go ahead, gals. Leave! You know where the door is! If you can
> > only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
>
> sorry that people get offended.
>
e-mails that she is no sensitive feminist nor shrinking violet.
I too post sometimes to provoke, not to offend, and will respond to
private or public criticism. I do not though, take kindly to those who
take it upon themselves to be offended on behalf of others who remain
silent.
--
Graham J Weeks
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/index.html
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
**********************************************************************
No wonder that, when a political career is so precarious, men of worth
and capacity hesitate to embrace it. They cannot afford to be thrown out
of their life's course by a mere accident.
James Bryce (1838-1922) "The American Commonwealth," vol. 2, ch. 58,
1888.
**********************************************************************
Daniel J. Epright
Dear Dr. Whelan,
If you can "give as good as you get," you'll stay. If you cannot, you'll
leave.
I'm sure the power of your ideas will "level the playing field."
You might consider it a defeat if you "take your toys and go home."
BTW: Where DO those quotes come from?
BinneBrook
Well, I've decided to come back, having had numerous letters of support from
the men and women of the group -- thank you all for that! I also found that
getting out of the kitchen for not being able to take the heat, while it has
its discreet charm, is less fun than being in the group.
Harald can dish it out, but he sure can't take it. What can one expect from
someone who can't even spell his name right? It might be helpful if he put his
name in his subject headings so we of good taste and genuine sensibilities
might avoid them. Drawing on reserves of noblesse oblige I didn't know I had,
I think I'll just ignore them, as I do those who wish me ill for whatever
reason.
Thank you again, all. I will be gone most of next week -- gotta get two acres
of grass mown, get the boat in the water, build some steps down to the lake,
etc. Anyway, voice communications only up there in the woods and weeds, so if
I don't post for a while, don't think it's because I've ditched again.
Bin --- "....to die, and never have seen Brooklyn..." --Anne Sexton
Emma Whelan
Okay, I'm back, after having received a lot of supportive e-mails from
the more evolved members of this group--thanks, gang! It's easy enough to
just ignore anything marked "Harald Johnson" anyway...and yet, I feel
compelled to respond to his latest inflammatory response to my objection
to misogyny, in the hope, I suppose, that he may be educable yet.
Harald Johnson (h.jo...@ndh.net.remove) wrote:
> The fact that some people post quotes that women might not like is no
> reason for the said women to feel offended.
Your logic is faulty, my friend. If I don't like a quote because I find
it offensive, it means I feel offended by it.
> The quotes were not written by the posters and are not their personal
> opinion (I'm speaking for myself, of course!).
> They are posted as a point of interest and, possibly, to start a
> little debate.
Now you know that the respondents to your posts on misogyny don't find
them particularly interesting, perhaps you will look for other "points of
interest" that are more appreciated, and make more of a contribution to,
the group, especially now that you have engendered some debate upon the
subject of misogyny. Certainly, some of your quotations are quite
interesting to me; but misogyny, as it is so widespread and old-hat, is
not particularly interesting to me. I have heard most of those quotations
before, or similar ones expressing the same sentiments.
> If I posted something negative about egoist or anything negative about
> any other personal trait, what would you think if these people got
> upset and ran storm? They would become a laughing stock. That's
> exactly what some of the women are doing here.
Funnily enough, none of the respondents to my post have constructed me as
a laughing stock, except for you; and it's never much fun to laugh alone,
is it, Harald, especially when you're the butt of most of the jokes.
But that aside, not all personal traits are created equal. Egoists, for
example, do not have an institutionalized history of oppression. When you
post sexist quotations, you are reifying existing and damaging fictions
about women that have condoned and engendered (among other things) sexual
harassment in the workplace, rape, economic disadvantage, women's
exclusion from politics, and (most recently) practices designed to exclude
women from participating in the Internet. Also, when you post such
quotations, you come across as a woman-hating, hidebound jerk, engendering
suspicions that you have some deep-rooted antipathy toward your mother or,
perhaps, a woman who spurned your romantic overtures in the past. I'm
sure you don't wish to construct yourself as such; I'm sure you love your
mum; and I'm sure you're a big hit with the chicks. Let us see that side
of you, Harald!
You consider women to be a fair group to "pick on"--some, but thankfully not
all, men think it is perfectly acceptable to say things about women that
they would never dare to say (even in the relative anonymity of
cyberspace) about people of colour, people with disabilities, Jews, or any
other historically and currently disempowered group. I and others are
letting you know that we do not find it funny or interesting when you
ridicule and insult women, any more than we would find it funny or
interesting if you were to ridicule or insult gays, lesbians, people of
colour, or Jews. If you really want to start a debate, Harald, why not
post some anti-Semitic quotations? Why? Because you recognize that this
would be inappropriate and that it would hurt and upset people, and that
you'd be flamed beyond your wildest dreams. You may not have realized
that your sexist quotations would offend people, and I am willing
to forgive your ignorance; but continuing to knowingly hurt
and upset people, when you have been told that anti-women quotes are
upsetting and hurtful, is not forgiveable. I will stop reading your posts
now; you are obviously consciously attempting to annoy and upset
people, but you can be ignored.
> Re the one about "Long dresses and little courage" (Yes, I was the one
> who sent it in. So what?), I feel one could ask oneself, why did this
> proverb come into being? After all it's an historical proverb. Forget
> your stupid "political correctness" for a second! There are more
> important things in life.
So, searching for sexist quotations and typing them, one after the other,
onto the computer screen, is one of the more important things in life?
Perhaps you need a hobby; have you tried flower arranging? One of my
favourite hobbies is re-educating misogynists; it's very rewarding and, I
think, socially responsible.
People who oppose "political correctness" are invariably those who seek to
maintain their illegitimately-based social privilege. But the tide is
turning; you might as well face it. More and more women and men are
finding sexism and misogyny distasteful, and accusing people of being
"politically correct" when they oppose sexism and misogyny isn't going to
stop them from doing so. It's a pretty poor tactic.
> But go ahead, gals. Leave! You know where the door is! If you can
> only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
> PS----Did like your quotes and all, though! Interesting!
I'm glad you like the quotations; this "gal" would be happy to supply you
with a feminist theory reading list. It's not too late for you, Harald!
You too can throw off the misogyny that shackles your intellect, move into
the 21st century with a newly-enlightened social consciousness, and
develop rewarding relationships with women! Turn away from the darkness
and walk toward the light! Don't be afraid!
And now, onto other matters.
Best wishes to all and sundry,
Emma
Darren Chng
I am sure it's not Harald's or anyone's intention to cause offense to
any particular group by deliberately posting offensive quotes . Its
really wierd the way things get blown up way out of proportion.
I now think that it might be a good idea to post our quotes with a
little short explanation of how we have interpreted the quote , and
which aspect of the quote we would like to see provoking further
discussion/debate.
I think we all see/perceive things differently. So I guess from now
on we need to be more sensitive to each other's feelings and rather
than allowing misunderstandings and flare-ups to occur, we should try
to work towards "Lets agree to disagree".
Well, that's my 2 cents. Let us all try to get along and get on with
our sharing and enjoying of quotes.
darren
I'm complicated, sentimental, lovable, honest, loyal, decent,
generous, likable, and lonely. My personality is not split; it's
shredded.
- Jack Paar
Harald Johnson
On Fri, 22 May 1998 20:36:24 -0400, Frank Lynch <fra...@interport.net>
wrote:
>Harald Johnson wrote:
>
>> The fact that some people post quotes that women might not like is no
>> reason for the said women to feel offended.
>>
>> The quotes were not written by the posters and are not their personal
>> opinion (I'm speaking for myself, of course!).
>>
>> They are posted as a point of interest and, possibly, to start a
>> little debate.
>>
>> If I posted something negative about egoist or anything negative about
>> any other personal trait, what would you think if these people got
>> upset and ran storm? They would become a laughing stock. That's
>> exactly what some of the women are doing here.
######
>Then Harald, play devil's advocate on the other side every once in a while.
>That way I'd know that you were posting only for effect.
##########
I am not "posting for effect". Are you?
>> But go ahead, gals. Leave! You know where the door is! If you can
>> only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
#######
>I disagree. I appreciate the diversity that everyone brings here, and am
>sorry that people get offended.
##########
I do too, of course, but it seems you have missed something. The whole
point *is* that there is no need to feel offended (read the posting).
Are you seriously saying we should not quote things that might
possibly offend someone? You *must* be joking!!!!!!!!! Censorship due
to "PC"? Not with me. I'll have none of that.
No one has to read any quotes they don't like, right? It's like a
collection of quotes in book form. Not a book would be published if
the publisher had to fear possibly offending someone with a quote
or two (Oh horrors!).
I have an idea! We could do what we did in rec.humor, namely to prefix
our offerings with a WARNING! How about that? Maybe an animated
gif, e.g. flashing lights like on a squad car? No? Oh well.
But, seriously, in rec.humor we had had a similar situation. Some of
the ladies were mightily upset by some of the "under the belt" humour
(mind you, not mine!). There was an endless discussion which ended
with the "Warning" compromise, as the majority was of the opinion
that we were all adults and were able to decide for ourselves
what they wanted to read. Why not, is what I say.
I shall close with Voltaire:
"The great consolation in life is to say what one thinks."
And good 'ol Honest Abe:
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves."
How true,"PC" lovers!
Harald
----------
Jack Granowski
I would also suggest that you get a killfile for newsgroups. I'm afraid that I am
not very tolerant of posters that are racist, sexist, iconoclastic, lmited
vocabulary (filthy words), flamers, etc.. My fixnews has many subjects and authors
that I would rather not see. This makes my newsgroup reading much more enjoyable
and also quicker.
BinneBrook wrote:
--
Jack
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ideas are not responsible for their followers!
----------------------------------------------------------------
jack...@quik13.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
AJA
On Fri, 22 May 1998 18:55:55 GMT, h.jo...@ndh.net.remove (Harald
Johnson) wrote:
>The fact that some people post quotes that women might not like is no
>reason for the said women to feel offended.
>
>The quotes were not written by the posters and are not their personal
>opinion (I'm speaking for myself, of course!).
>
>They are posted as a point of interest and, possibly, to start a
>little debate.
>
>If I posted something negative about egoist or anything negative about
>any other personal trait, what would you think if these people got
>upset and ran storm? They would become a laughing stock. That's
>exactly what some of the women are doing here.
>
>Re the one about "Long dresses and little courage" (Yes, I was the one
>who sent it in. So what?), I feel one could ask oneself, why did this
>proverb come into being? After all it's an historical proverb. Forget
>your stupid "political correctness" for a second! There are more
>important things in life.
>
>But go ahead, gals. Leave! You know where the door is! If you can
>only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
>
>PS----Did like your quotes and all, though! Interesting!
>
>Harald
>----------
>
>
Dear Harald,
We've heard this type of argument before: _I_ didn't say it, it's a
joke, a point of interest, etc, etc. Your "Leave!" shows your hand,
IMO. A simple apology seems to be more in order here, n'est-ce pas?
By the way Harold, I've enjoyed many of your posts also, even if some
of the recent ones further misogynist tendencies. Make no mistake. We
aren't speaking of 'political correctness'. We are speaking here of
common decency. I've found that a large measure of humility, if not
kindness, stands one in good stead - in the large picture!
All the best,
Ann
"It is encouraging to note that the difficulties arising from this
one-sidedness are already leading to a fresh appraisal of the
situation at its root base, i.e., a re-examination of the nature of
both feminine and masculine principles such as function as integral
parts of man's nature. The discovery is being made anew that each of
us is essentially whole - both masculine and feminine - Yin and Yang
(earth and sky) - Eros and Logos and that an individual or society
when geared only to one aspect is bound to become distorted and
incomplete in both development and effect.
"The West and we believe the East as well, is beginning to recognize
in this connection that sex equality is a reality and not a myth.
"...learn to perceive the validity of the maxim expressed by Lao-tsu
so long ago, 'He who, being a man, remains a woman, will become a
universal channel."
Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Gift from the Sea, quoted in The Choice Is
Always Ours, ed. Dorothy Berkley Phillips, Elizabeth Boyden Howes and
Lucille M. Nixon
Frank Lynch
Harald Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 1998 20:36:24 -0400, Frank Lynch <fra...@interport.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Harald Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> The fact that some people post quotes that women might not like is no
> >> reason for the said women to feel offended.
> >>
> >> The quotes were not written by the posters and are not their personal
> >> opinion (I'm speaking for myself, of course!).
> >>
> >> They are posted as a point of interest and, possibly, to start a
> >> little debate.
> >>
> >> If I posted something negative about egoist or anything negative about
> >> any other personal trait, what would you think if these people got
> >> upset and ran storm? They would become a laughing stock. That's
> >> exactly what some of the women are doing here.
> ######
> >Then Harald, play devil's advocate on the other side every once in a while.
> >That way I'd know that you were posting only for effect.
> ##########
>
> I am not "posting for effect". Are you?
I must have misunderstood you, then. Perhaps your meaning would be clearer if
you posted with commentary, as Darren has suggested.
> >> But go ahead, gals. Leave! You know where the door is! If you can
> >> only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
> #######
> >I disagree. I appreciate the diversity that everyone brings here, and am
> >sorry that people get offended.
> ##########
> I do too, of course, but it seems you have missed something. The whole
> point *is* that there is no need to feel offended (read the posting).
> Are you seriously saying we should not quote things that might
> possibly offend someone? You *must* be joking!!!!!!!!! Censorship due
> to "PC"? Not with me. I'll have none of that.
Nor would I. Not if PC is pursued blindly. But I do think it's worthwhile to
learn from people's offense, and to consider it. To *over*anticipate (which is
more of what I associate with being PC) is just plain foolish. And to go ahead
in spite of people's feelings is also foolish.
nyct...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6k6ru2$or7$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
ewh...@chat.carleton.ca (Emma Whelan) wrote:
>
[deleted]
>
> Harald Johnson (h.jo...@ndh.net.remove) wrote:
>
> > The quotes were not written by the posters and are not their personal
> > opinion (I'm speaking for myself, of course!).
>
> > They are posted as a point of interest and, possibly, to start a
> > little debate.
>
> Now you know that the respondents to your posts on misogyny don't find
> them particularly interesting, perhaps you will look for other "points of
> interest" that are more appreciated, and make more of a contribution to,
> the group, especially now that you have engendered some debate upon the
> subject of misogyny. Certainly, some of your quotations are quite
> interesting to me; but misogyny, as it is so widespread and old-hat, is
> not particularly interesting to me. I have heard most of those quotations
> before, or similar ones expressing the same sentiments.
>
Are you suggesting that Harald Johnson or anyone for that matter should not
post material which you or other "respondents" don't find "particularly
interesting?"
> > If I posted something negative about egoist or anything negative about
> > any other personal trait, what would you think if these people got
> > upset and ran storm? They would become a laughing stock. That's
> > exactly what some of the women are doing here.
>
> Funnily enough, none of the respondents to my post have constructed me as
> a laughing stock, except for you; and it's never much fun to laugh alone,
> is it, Harald, especially when you're the butt of most of the jokes.
>
Interesting to see how one attempts to paint themselves as a better being by
belittling the other individual.
> But that aside, not all personal traits are created equal. Egoists, for
> example, do not have an institutionalized history of oppression. When you
> post sexist quotations, you are reifying existing and damaging fictions
> about women that have condoned and engendered (among other things) sexual
> harassment in the workplace, rape, economic disadvantage, women's
> exclusion from politics, and (most recently) practices designed to exclude
> women from participating in the Internet. Also, when you post such
> quotations, you come across as a woman-hating, hidebound jerk, engendering
> suspicions that you have some deep-rooted antipathy toward your mother or,
> perhaps, a woman who spurned your romantic overtures in the past. I'm
> sure you don't wish to construct yourself as such; I'm sure you love your
> mum; and I'm sure you're a big hit with the chicks. Let us see that side
> of you, Harald!
>
I hope you plan on charging Harald a consultation fee for this little session.
As an aside, are we now judging individuals by the quotations that they post?
For somebody who paints themselves as a beacon for the misguided, you surely
tend to categorize individuals quite quickly.
Is this a positive "personal trait"?
> You consider women to be a fair group to "pick on"--some, but thankfully not
> all, men think it is perfectly acceptable to say things about women that
> they would never dare to say (even in the relative anonymity of
> cyberspace) about people of colour, people with disabilities, Jews, or any
> other historically and currently disempowered group. I and others are
> letting you know that we do not find it funny or interesting when you
> ridicule and insult women, any more than we would find it funny or
> interesting if you were to ridicule or insult gays, lesbians, people of
> colour, or Jews. If you really want to start a debate, Harald, why not
> post some anti-Semitic quotations? Why? Because you recognize that this
> would be inappropriate and that it would hurt and upset people, and that
> you'd be flamed beyond your wildest dreams. You may not have realized
> that your sexist quotations would offend people, and I am willing
> to forgive your ignorance; but continuing to knowingly hurt
> and upset people, when you have been told that anti-women quotes are
> upsetting and hurtful, is not forgiveable. I will stop reading your posts
> now; you are obviously consciously attempting to annoy and upset
> people, but you can be ignored.
>
Emma, do you realize that this is alt.quotations and not soc.women?
Harald has been posting quotes in alt.quotations. Aside from upseting a few
individuals, I don't see why he has to cease and desist on posting anything
that he deems interesting or noteworthy.
All written text has the potential to "offend people," whether intended or
not, as we all perceive it differently. This is what makes us individuals.
I'd hate to think what a society would be like if we all had to please the
regime who set forth the rules.
> > Re the one about "Long dresses and little courage" (Yes, I was the one
> > who sent it in. So what?), I feel one could ask oneself, why did this
> > proverb come into being? After all it's an historical proverb. Forget
> > your stupid "political correctness" for a second! There are more
> > important things in life.
>
> So, searching for sexist quotations and typing them, one after the other,
> onto the computer screen, is one of the more important things in life?
> Perhaps you need a hobby; have you tried flower arranging? One of my
> favourite hobbies is re-educating misogynists; it's very rewarding and, I
> think, socially responsible.
>
Is it also "socially responsible" to condemn what other people choose to do
with their own free time?
I can see how this could be personally "rewarding" but I fail to see how it
could be seen as socially responsible.
> People who oppose "political correctness" are invariably those who seek to
> maintain their illegitimately-based social privilege. But the tide is
> turning; you might as well face it. More and more women and men are
> finding sexism and misogyny distasteful, and accusing people of being
> "politically correct" when they oppose sexism and misogyny isn't going to
> stop them from doing so. It's a pretty poor tactic.
>
Isn't it also a "pretty poor tactic" to assume that one who opposes political
correctness is "invariably ... maintain[ing] their illegitmately-based social
privilege?"
There are sufficient chameleons within society to dispel any theory of how
only those who oppose our points of view wish to do us harm.
> > But go ahead, gals. Leave! You know where the door is! If you can
> > only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
>
> > PS----Did like your quotes and all, though! Interesting!
>
> I'm glad you like the quotations; this "gal" would be happy to supply you
> with a feminist theory reading list. It's not too late for you, Harald!
> You too can throw off the misogyny that shackles your intellect, move into
> the 21st century with a newly-enlightened social consciousness, and
> develop rewarding relationships with women! Turn away from the darkness
> and walk toward the light! Don't be afraid!
>
> And now, onto other matters.
>
> Best wishes to all and sundry,
> Emma
>
alt.feminism?
I'm afraid I will need to side with Harald on the last point.
If individuals tend to take things personally, alt.quotations might not be
the appropriate place to be. A moderated and similar minded forum might be
the ideal place for these individuals to call "home," i.e. soc.women.
It would however be a shame to see individuals leave this forum due to an
inability to digest "quotes".
Afterall, would you stop reading because of any misuse of the printed
language?
-N-
Lust is when you love what you see. Love is when you lust for what's inside.
--Renee Conkle
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Darren Chng
I am sure Harald will stand by what he had said and take your
provocative quotes in his stride.:)
Whether Harald is in the wrong or not, I think most people understand
there is a clear distinction between being unintentionally offensive
and being deliberately boorish.
darren
The first and last commandment is,
Don't let them scare you.
-Elmer Davis (1890-1958), But We Were Born Free, 1954.
American writer, commentator
On Sat, 23 May 1998 01:20:04 GMT, dpbs...@world.std.com (Daniel P. B.
Smith) wrote:
>Harald? Harald? What funny sort of name is that? Ho, ho, just joshing,
>don't take it personally. It's Bulgarian, of course. People with
>Bulgarian names are always so sensitive and humorless.
<snipped>
Darren Chng
On Sat, 23 May 1998 23:01:50 -0400, Frank Lynch <fra...@interport.net>
wrote:
>
>Nor would I. Not if PC is pursued blindly. But I do think it's worthwhile to
>learn from people's offense, and to consider it. To *over*anticipate (which is
>more of what I associate with being PC) is just plain foolish. And to go ahead
>in spite of people's feelings is also foolish.
>
>Frank
Well said, Frank. My thumbs up to that.:)
darren
"The man of understanding finds everything laughable." - Goethe
Emma Whelan
nyct...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Are you suggesting that Harald Johnson or anyone for that matter should not
> post material which you or other "respondents" don't find "particularly
> interesting?"
Not at all; I am responding to Harald's claim that his quotations were
"posted as a point of interest":
> > Harald Johnson (h.jo...@ndh.net.remove) wrote:
> >
(snip)
> > > They are posted as a point of interest and, possibly, to start a
> > > little debate.
I don't find sexist quotations to be a point of interest, personally.
Perhaps you do. You've had the opportunity to read them, and I haven't
tried to stop you, or to stop Harald from posting them.
> > > If I posted something negative about egoist or anything negative about
> > > any other personal trait, what would you think if these people got
> > > upset and ran storm? They would become a laughing stock. That's
> > > exactly what some of the women are doing here.
> Interesting to see how one attempts to paint themselves as a better being by
> belittling the other individual.
Yes, isn't it--for example, when Harald responded to my post by labelling
me as "PC" (gasp! If that's the worst I'll ever be called, I'm thankful);
by referring to me as "gal"; by implying that I'm hysterical and censorial
because I objected to quotes that insult my sex...For the third time,
would Harald have posted racist quotations, and would anyone be upbraiding
me and supporting his right to "free speech" if he had? I'd be
interested to see this question addressed here. It's unfortunate
that this thread has degenerated to such nastiness; I'm as guilty of
contributing to that as anyone else. But I, of course, think my
principles and opinions are just, as presumably everyone does, or they
wouldn't hold those principles and opinions.
> As an aside, are we now judging individuals by the quotations that they post?
Perhaps I am, when I feel they use the posting of quotations to inflame
people and to denigrate me and other members of my sex. But last I
checked, I'm free to make whatever judgments I like about people, based
upon my interactions with them.
> For somebody who paints themselves as a beacon for the misguided, you surely
> tend to categorize individuals quite quickly.
> Is this a positive "personal trait"?
I have never claimed to be a "beacon for the misguided"; I have tried to
point out some of the implications of posting quotations that insult
women, and have posted a series of quotations that address those
implications. I don't consider criticizing people's views, or the views
expressed in the quotations they post, to constitute censorship. I
haven't suggested that Harald be excluded from the group or that his right
to post quotations be revoked, and would never do such a thing, much as I
might wish that people didn't express sexist ideas. I have objected to
the substance of his quotations, but more than that, to his responses to
Mary's and my genuine discomfort about the posting of sexist quotations.
Instead of saying "I'm sorry if I offended you; that wasn't my intention,"
which would have sufficed, as far as I'm concerned, Harald responded by
telling us that our responses were invalid and ridiculous. Is this
respectful? Does this respect free speech?
> Emma, do you realize that this is alt.quotations and not soc.women?
Excuse me; I didn't realize that the expression of opposition to sexism is
only permitted on soc.women! I've contributed a series of quotations
about sexism and sexual harassment to the group, given that it is a
quotations newsgroup. Presumably you are as supportive of my right to
post such quotations, and commentary on others' postings, as you are of
Harald's rights to post quotations and comment on those that others post.
> Harald has been posting quotes in alt.quotations. Aside from upseting a few
> individuals, I don't see why he has to cease and desist on posting anything
> that he deems interesting or noteworthy.
I haven't asked him to cease and desist. I've told him the quotations
offend me and noted that others have also expressed their annoyance, and
have pointed out that if he continues to post such quotations, he will
continue to offend me and others.
> All written text has the potential to "offend people," whether intended or
> not, as we all perceive it differently. This is what makes us individuals.
Yes; and the sexist quotations offend me, though perhaps you don't find
them objectionable. I never indicated that I was speaking for everyone on
this newsgroup; I spoke for myself, and reiterated sentiments expressed by
others on this newsgroup.
> I'd hate to think what a society would be like if we all had to please the
> regime who set forth the rules.
Have I become the regime who sets the rules? Has voicing opposition
to ideas become equivalent to setting forth rules? What, if any, rules
have been set forth?
> Is it also "socially responsible" to condemn what other people choose to do
> with their own free time?
No. Did I suggest it was? I thought I was taking issue with Harald's
argument that MY political opinions and activities were unimportant and
worthless ("Forget your stupid 'political correctness' for a second! There
are more important things in life."); and questioning whether his
opinions and activities were more valuable than mine.
> I can see how this could be personally "rewarding" but I fail to see how it
> could be seen as socially responsible.
I see it as socially responsible to oppose sexism and to try to present
an alternative way of thinking about gender relations, because it seems to
me that sexism is damaging to people and, therefore, should be opposed.
> Isn't it also a "pretty poor tactic" to assume that one who opposes political
> correctness is "invariably ... maintain[ing] their illegitmately-based social
> privilege?"
No; one could argue that it is a pretty poor assumption, but an assumption
isn't a tactic. It seems to me, in fact, to be a pretty sound assumption;
I can't imagine why anyone would label criticism of sexism to be
"political correctness," UNLESS the goal was to delegitimate that
criticism without dealing with its substance.
> There are sufficient chameleons within society to dispel any theory of how
> only those who oppose our points of view wish to do us harm.
I don't understand what you mean here.
> alt.feminism?
> I'm afraid I will need to side with Harald on the last point.
> If individuals tend to take things personally, alt.quotations might not be
> the appropriate place to be. A moderated and similar minded forum might be
> the ideal place for these individuals to call "home," i.e. soc.women.
Are you suggesting that feminists or anyone who finds a quotation
offensive should not participate in this group, or that the only venue for
those who find sexism offensive is soc.women or alt.feminism? I'm afraid
that, if you seek to restrict feminists or anti-sexist men and women to
two newsgroups, you're unlikely to succeed. But presumably you aren't
seeking to marginalize anyone.
> It would however be a shame to see individuals leave this forum due to an
> inability to digest "quotes".
You'll be pleased to note my return to the group then. I appreciate your
support. My ability to digest quotations has never been in question;
I understood the quotations that Harald posted, though I didn't like them.
What seems to be in question is whether I have the right to express my
dislike of sexist quotations.
> Afterall, would you stop reading because of any misuse of the printed
> language?
This is a non sequiter. I won't stop reading quotations because I don't
like sexist ones. A more appropriate comparison would be, would you stop
reading a paper that consistently printed material that offended me? And
my answer would be, perhaps, if I didn't get anything out of that paper.
But I do get something out of this newsgroup, and that's why I've decided to
stay and participate, in spite of the obvious disgust that some members of
the group feel toward feminism, a philosophy which I hold dear. (And,
just to clarify, feminism is not about "man-hating," but misogyny-hating;
it is not about burning books, but about challenging prevailing modes of
thought; it is not a modern form of Naziism, but opposes fascism in all
its forms; it is not "anti-family," but supports a variety of family forms;
and it is not a conspiracy to denude men of all their power, but merely
seeks to redefine power relations in a more egalitarian way...at least
this is my understanding of feminism...and feminist is not a label that
precludes all other interests, including an interest in quotations that
have nothing to do with gender relations, hence my participation in the
group).
I do apologize for resorting to sarcasm, and especially for my facetious
speculations about Harald's feelings about his mother and his romantic
history; those were made in anger, and don't help matters. My goal is
to point out the damage that sexism does, not to perpetuate it, and I
apologize to anyone who was offended by my remarks. I've contributed my
thoughts about sexism in the group, in keeping with the principles of free
speech and my concern that others, as well as myself, were feeling
attacked by sexist quotations. If people choose to disagree with my
opinions, they are of course free to do so; I have no power to force
others to see things my way, as some of the responses to my post make
clear.
I suggest we let the matter rest now; my intention was to present a
thought-provoking critique of some of the postings to this group, not to
engender defensiveness and anger. Obviously I haven't succeeded.
Cheers,
Emma
P.S. To the person who referred to me as "Dr. Whelan": I'm only a lowly
doctoral student/research assistant, and not entitled to the title for yet
awhile! (though it was kind of neat to see those words in print...gave me
hope that some day I WILL finish that dratted dissertation!)
Graham Weeks
Jack Granowski wrote:
>
> I would also suggest that you get a killfile for newsgroups. I'm afraid that I am
> not very tolerant of posters that are racist, sexist, iconoclastic, lmited
> vocabulary (filthy words), flamers, etc.. My fixnews has many subjects and authors
> that I would rather not see. This makes my newsgroup reading much more enjoyable
> and also quicker.
>
Now what is wrong with iconoclasm? Are you a sculptor? :-)
Harald Johnson
On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:47:30 GMT, ahne...@cybernex.net (AJA) wrote:
>Dear Harald,
>
>We've heard this type of argument before: _I_ didn't say it, it's a
>joke, a point of interest, etc, etc. Your "Leave!" shows your hand,
>IMO. A simple apology seems to be more in order here, n'est-ce pas?
For what?
I post quotes because I find them of some interest. If a person is
offended because I'm interested in a quote, I should apologise?
>
>By the way Harold, I've enjoyed many of your posts also
Thanks!
>of the recent ones further misogynist tendencies.
I wouldn't say that.
>ake no mistake. We
>aren't speaking of 'political correctness'. We are speaking here of
>common decency.
I would say you're reading this wrong.
Cheers!
Harald
Harald Johnson
On 23 May 1998 10:03:09 GMT, jma...@fish.hooked.net (Jo Ann Malina)
wrote:
<snip>
>Don't go, Emma. Just skip Harald's crap, I do.
The only crap I see here is coming out of you!
>f he ever posted a
>non-misogynistic quote, I wouldn't see it.
Yes, sure. I do nothing else! Why don't you check the facts first and
stop lying?
>I wouldn't see it.
I know! Don't tell me! You're blind?
>ut there's too much good
>stuff around to bother sifting through the rubbish.)
Yeah, like this rubbish of yours!
(Don't know why I bother respond to yours. Guess I don't want to spoil
you!)
>Thanks for all the good quotes, anyway.
You're welcome, honey!
Harald Johnson
Frank:
>> >Then Harald, play devil's advocate on the other side every once in a while.
>> >That way I'd know that you were posting only for effect.
>> ##########
>> I am not "posting for effect". Are you?
>I must have misunderstood you, then. Perhaps your meaning would be clearer if
>you posted with commentary, as Darren has suggested.
What on earth are you talking about ? (No, I don't know what D.
suggested. Guess I missed it.)
Harald:
>>The whole
>> point *is* that there is no need to feel offended (read the posting).
>> Are you seriously saying we should not quote things that might
>> possibly offend someone? You *must* be joking!!!!!!!!! Censorship due
>> to "PC"? Not with me. I'll have none of that.
>Nor would I. Not if PC is pursued blindly. But I do think it's worthwhile to
>learn from people's offense, and to consider it. To *over*anticipate (which is
>more of what I associate with being PC) is just plain foolish. And to go ahead
>in spite of people's feelings is also foolish.
This is very helpful, I'm sure. So what do you suggest? Treading
water? At least I offered a compromise. (Can't say I've seen it again!
Looks like s.o. has snipped it-------how convienient! (Frank, I am NOT
saying it's you!)
Harald
----------
Harald Johnson
On Sat, 23 May 1998 08:52:43 -0500, AWILBANKS <AWIL...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
<snippus>
>You speak only for youself, not for the newsgroup.
Oh, you are wrong there! The ng has proclaimed me emperor, esp the
dames!
>f I say things
>that give people offense, regardless of how I meant them, I am sorry
>for having said them.
Your mommy must be very proud of you, my lad!
BTW, I didn't say anything!I just sent in in the odd quote, like some
other people!
> little civility might be useful. There is
>a danger that a few people will pollute the water that all of us drink.
No kidding? I've never thunk of that! Thanks for the lesson,padre!
Harald
Harald Johnson
>Frank Lynch wrote:
>>
>> Harald Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > But go ahead, gals. Leave! You know where the door is! If you can
>> > only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
>>
>> I disagree. I appreciate the diversity that everyone brings here, and am
>> sorry that people get offended.
>>
>
>I am with Frank. I am very sorry if Bin has left. I know from private
>e-mails that she is no sensitive feminist nor shrinking violet.
>
>I too post sometimes to provoke, not to offend, and will respond to
>private or public criticism. I do not though, take kindly to those who
>take it upon themselves to be offended on behalf of others who remain
>silent.
Sorry. I didn't quite catch that last sentence! Your grammar seems a
bit too convoluted!
Cheers
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on Sun, 24 May 1998 10:09:44 GMT,
h.jo...@ndh.net.remove (Harald Johnson) wrote:
>I post quotes because I find them of some interest. If a person is
>offended because I'm interested in a quote, I should apologise?
Only if you're concerned about the feelings of others,
Harald. If they're not important to you, then by all
means ignore them.
================================================================
Margaret Tarbet / tar...@swaa.com / Cambridge Massachusetts USA
----------------------------------------------------------------
"In masks outrageous and austere / The years go by in single file.
Yet none has merited my fear / And none has quite escaped my smile."
--Elinor Wylie
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on Sun, 24 May 1998 04:07:45 GMT,
nyct...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Emma, do you realize that this is alt.quotations and not soc.women?
Although this wasn't addressed to me, and Emma has
already responded, i do really feel the need to point
out something important, that seemingly cannot be
repeated too often:
Feminism is the belief that women and men ought to, as
of right, enjoy equality of opportunity and reward in
all areas of public life. Simply that. Nothing more,
nothing less. Feminism is not about women's dominance,
or any other bugaboo. It is also not some quaint idea
that is only applicable to certain "reserved" venues.
It's for everyday life. Feminism applies _here_ too.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Tarbet / tar...@swaa.com / Cambridge Massachusetts USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on Sun, 24 May 1998 09:58:50 GMT,
h.jo...@ndh.net.remove (Harald Johnson) wrote:
>...
>You're welcome, honey!
Your slip is showing, Harald.
BinneBrook
My class had a gerbil named Harald.
He was plump and rotund, even barreled.
We tried some experiments,
Wrapped him in cerements:
"Let me out! Let me out!" caroled Harald!
Graham Weeks
Harald Johnson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:09:22 +0100, Graham Weeks
> <wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I too post sometimes to provoke, not to offend, and will respond to
> >private or public criticism. I do not though, take kindly to those who
> >take it upon themselves to be offended on behalf of others who remain
> >silent.
>
> Sorry. I didn't quite catch that last sentence! Your grammar seems a
> bit too convoluted!
>
BTW have you had your blood pressure checked lately? Overactivity in a
heated environment may be hypertensive :-)
Graham Weeks
Margaret Tarbet wrote:
> Feminism is the belief that women and men ought to, as
> of right, enjoy equality of opportunity and reward in
> all areas of public life. Simply that. Nothing more,
> nothing less.
This would be fine, I could say, Amen, except for the fact that it is an
example of the fallacy of nothingbuttery.
There is more to eating grapefruit than meets the eye.
There is more to feminism than this.
--
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on Mon, 25 May 1998 07:07:28 +0100,
Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>This would be fine, I could say, Amen, except for the fact that it is an
>example of the fallacy of nothingbuttery.
>
>There is more to eating grapefruit than meets the eye.
>
>There is more to feminism than this.
Sorry, Graham, but no, you're wrong. I am a feminist,
and speak from personal knowledge. Ann, Emma, Mary,
and any other feminists reading here will say the same
thing. Any mainstream feminist source you choose will
say the same thing. The _canonical_ feminist
expression in the US - the ERA - said the same thing.
Feminism is a very simple proposition. Any claim that
it is more sinister is a fabrication based in
ignorance, fear, or malice.
Margaret Tarbet / tar...@swaa.com / Cambridge Massachusetts USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit."
-- Joh. Wolfg. v. Goethe
Gareth Owen
Margaret Tarbet <tar...@swaa.com> writes:
>
> Feminism is the belief that women and men ought to, as
> of right, enjoy equality of opportunity and reward in
> all areas of public life. Simply that. Nothing more,
> or any other bugaboo. It is also not some quaint idea
> that is only applicable to certain "reserved" venues.
> It's for everyday life. Feminism applies _here_ too.
Exactly right, and that is why this argument is nothing to do with
feminism. If someone posted quotations here that were offensive about
men, the Welsh, the British, mathematicians, people with the initials GWO
or any other group in which I am included, would I be right to demand they
stop in order to protect me and mine.
Answer: I have absolutely no idea. I would tend to take a Voltairean
view of such things, but I wouldn't consider myself to be taking a
higher moral stand in doing so than those who did complain.
Discussing this as a feminist issue obscures the real issue.
--
Gareth Owen
Somebody's boring me.
I think it's me.
Daniel P. B. Smith
Margaret Tarbet wrote:
> Feminism is the belief that women and men ought to, as
> of right, enjoy equality of opportunity and reward in
> all areas of public life. Simply that. Nothing more,
> nothing less.
>Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>This would be fine, I could say, Amen, except for the fact that it is an
>>example of the fallacy of nothingbuttery.
>>
>>There is more to eating grapefruit than meets the eye.
>>
>>There is more to feminism than this.
The dictionary says (my cruddy little online American Heritage)
"fem-i-nism n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief."
Pretty darned good match between Margaret Tarbet's statement and
definition #1.
But what about definition #2? Is "the movement organized around this
belief" completely faithful to the belief, or could it have acquired some
extraneous things along the way?
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbs...@world.std.com
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on Mon, 25 May 1998 14:09:26 GMT,
dpbs...@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) wrote:
>But what about definition #2? Is "the movement organized around this
>belief" completely faithful to the belief, or could it have acquired some
>extraneous things along the way?
Well, no movement is different to the majority of the
people who are in it. All the feminists i know or
have ever known have essentially the same definition i
do. Some have been separatists, some have been willing
to extract the michael (as, e.g., the tee i'm wearing:
Ladies Sewing Circle & Terrorist Society), and some
have expressed chauvinistic personal views. But none
has claimed that feminism is anything but the belief in
equality.
The only people i've _ever_ met or heard of who've
asserted any other definition of feminism have been
those who would neither describe themselves nor be
described by others as feminists.
AJA
>Margaret Tarbet wrote:
>
>> Feminism is the belief that women and men ought to, as
>> of right, enjoy equality of opportunity and reward in
>> all areas of public life. Simply that. Nothing more,
>> nothing less.
>
>There is more to feminism than this.
>--
>
>Graham J Weeks
>http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/index.html
>http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
>**********************************************************************
Nope! That's about it, Graham!
All the best you hope for,
Ann
Ed C
BinneBrook wrote:
>
> Well, I've decided to come back, having had numerous letters of support from
> the men and women of the group -- thank you all for that! I also found that
> getting out of the kitchen for not being able to take the heat, while it has
> its discreet charm, is less fun than being in the group.
>
Like that sterling (sic) piece of humanity, Rodney King, once said:
"Can't we all just get along?"
Ed :)
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on 25 May 1998 13:26:22 +0100,
Gareth Owen <gowen+...@ma.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>...
> Discussing this as a feminist issue obscures the real issue.
Says it all, really.
jack...@quik13.com
In article <3567DF...@dircon.co.uk>,
wee...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Jack Granowski wrote:
> >
> > I would also suggest that you get a killfile for newsgroups. I'm afraid
that I am
> > not very tolerant of posters that are racist, sexist, iconoclastic,
lmited
> > vocabulary (filthy words), flamers, etc.. My fixnews has many subjects
and authors
> > that I would rather not see. This makes my newsgroup reading much more
enjoyable
> > and also quicker.
> >
>
> Now what is wrong with iconoclasm? Are you a sculptor? :-)
Sorry, I should have put in a definition for you. This appeared recently in
Word-A-Day, I also looked it up in my only 2 dictionary's. This gives a
better history.
iconoclast (eye-KON-uh-klast) noun
1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or
institutions. (my use)
2. One who destroys sacred religious images.
[French iconoclaste, from Medieval Greek eikonoklastes, smasher of religious
images : Greek eikono-, icono- + -klastes, breaker (from Greek klan, klas-,
to break).]
WORD HISTORY: An iconoclast can be unpleasant company, but at least the
modern iconoclast only attacks such things as ideas and institutions. The
original iconoclasts destroyed countless works of art. Eikonoklastes, the
ancestor of our word, was first formed in Medieval Greek from the elements
eikon, "image, likeness," and -klastes, "breaker," from klan, "to break." The
images referred to by the word are religious images, which were the subject
of controversy among Christians of the Byzantine Empire in the 8th and 9th
centuries, when iconoclasm was at its height. Those who opposed images did
not, of course, simply destroy them, although many were demolished; they
also attempted to have the images barred from display and veneration. During
the Protestant Reformation images in churches were again felt to be
idolatrous and were once more banned and destroyed. It is around this time
that iconoclast, the descendant of the Greek word, is first recorded in
English (1641), with reference to the Greek iconoclasts. In the 19th century
iconoclast took on the secular sense that it has today, as in "Kant was the
great iconoclast" (James Martineau).
From now on, I should be expected to use the modern definition.
Jack
>
> Graham J Weeks
> http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/index.html
> http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
> **********************************************************************
> No wonder that, when a political career is so precarious, men of worth
> and capacity hesitate to embrace it. They cannot afford to be thrown out
> of their life's course by a mere accident.
> James Bryce (1838-1922) "The American Commonwealth," vol. 2, ch. 58,
> 1888.
> **********************************************************************
>
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on Tue, 26 May 1998 07:49:30 +0100,
Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>fem·i·nism
>Date: 1895
>1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the
>sexes
>2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
>
>The implications are far more profound than the simple definition.
[*sigh*] Why don't you tell us about them, then,
Graham. Evidently neither impartial definition nor
personal testimony avail anything when opposed by your
need to believe differently.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Tarbet / tar...@swaa.com / Cambridge Massachusetts USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
hran...@netonecom.net
On Mon, 25 May 1998 09:55:34 GMT, Margaret Tarbet <tar...@swaa.com> wrote:
>In alt.quotations on Mon, 25 May 1998 07:07:28 +0100,
>Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>This would be fine, I could say, Amen, except for the fact that it is an
>>example of the fallacy of nothingbuttery.
>>
She wanted to cry "Ah! men," but "Ah! men" stuck in her throat.
--W.S. Gilbert (more or less)
--
Ben Trovato
hran...@netonecom.net
ScottH9999
>Subject: Re: a little balance
>From: Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk>
>Date: Sat, May 23, 1998 11:09 EDT
>Message-id: <3566E6...@dircon.co.uk>
>
>Frank Lynch wrote:
>>
>> Harald Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > But go ahead, gals. Leave! You know where the door is! If you can
>> > only take things personally, the ng *is* better off without you!
>>
>> I disagree. I appreciate the diversity that everyone brings here, and am
>> sorry that people get offended.
>>
>
>I am with Frank. I am very sorry if Bin has left. I know from private
>e-mails that she is no sensitive feminist nor shrinking violet.
>
>private or public criticism. I do not though, take kindly to those who
>take it upon themselves to be offended on behalf of others who remain
>silent.
>
>Graham J Weeks
>http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/index.html
>http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
It is interesting that Harald Johnson and Graham Weeks defend their sexist
postings by claiming that they only wish to "provoke" and not offend, or
because it is merely "good natured humor". But though THEY do not admit it, or
understand this about themselves, the fact that they do post sexist material
(from any other motive than to oppose it) shows they are indeed sexists. That
is clear enough to most of us.
Harald Johnson, though, goes further, and tries to silence or drive out anyone
who objects to his sexism. Avoiding all delicacy, he is a jerk. There may at
least be some hope for winning over Graham, who probably has an inkling that
his sexist comments are serving to discredit religion. (A point I happily try
to drive home at every opportunity.)
But I also have to criticize Emma Whelan, Bin, and any other people (female or
male) who duck out of this newsgroup because of the reactionary views which are
sometimes posted here. Stand and fight! If you can't wage a struggle for the
defense of women here, how do you hope to do so in society as a whole?
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [AND WOMEN!] to
do nothing." --Attributed (probably falsely) to Edmund Burke
Society is in ferment. There are advanced ideas, and backward ideas. But those
backward ideas will prevail if those who know better refuse to struggle against
them. We should HOUND people like Harald Johnson when they post sexist, racist,
or otherwise egregiously bad opinions. If they cannot be won over, and if some
people get driven out of the newsgroup by all the hounding, it should be
individuals like them.
--Scott Harrison
"Don't let the bastards grind you down!" --Unknown
Graham Weeks
Margaret Tarbet wrote:
>
> In alt.quotations on Tue, 26 May 1998 07:49:30 +0100,
> Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >fem·i·nism
> >Date: 1895
> >1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the
> >sexes
> >2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
> >
> >The implications are far more profound than the simple definition.
>
> [*sigh*] Why don't you tell us about them, then,
> Graham. Evidently neither impartial definition nor
> personal testimony avail anything when opposed by your
> need to believe differently.
I will not go into them for this is alt.quotes and I am not interested
in alt.feminsm.
Graham J Weeks
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/index.html
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Emma Whelan
ScottH9999 (scott...@aol.com) wrote: > But I also have to criticize Emma
Whelan, Bin, and any other people (female or > male) who duck out of this
newsgroup because of the reactionary views which are > sometimes posted
here. Stand and fight! If you can't wage a struggle for the > defense of
women here, how do you hope to do so in society as a whole?
Hi Scott,
I understand your point, and others have urged me to remain in the
newsgroup for the same reason. You'll note that both Bin and I returned to
the newsgroup some time ago. But, speaking for myself and not for Bin (who
can obviously quite eloquently speak for herself), I need to make a point.
This newsgroup is not the only place where I've encountered
sexism. My life as a feminist sociologist and graduate student has been
full of little daily battles--male faculty making sexually harassing
remarks, telling me about their sex lives and preferences for particular
sexual activities, asking me to their places for dinner and "a nice bottle
of wine", making sexist jokes, commenting on my clothes, my body, and my
sex life, speculating on whether I'm sleeping with my (male) supervisor
(and no, I'm not); male graduate students calling me a 'virago' in the
midst of a purely academic debate about something completely unrelated to
feminism, etc. And this is in a supposedly 'progressive' discipline.
While everyone who knows me knows I'm anything but a shrinking violet, I
only have so much energy to battle every sexist incident I witness. I'm
thankful that others in this group and elsewhere are able to pick up the
ball every once in a while. The constant feminist-bashing and misogyny
that I read about and witness in my daily life can be quite exhausting,
and I have to pick my battles.
Even in supposedly feminist venues on Usenet (eg. alt.feminism,
which someone suggested I join), the most frequent posters are
anti-feminists looking for a fight. The "front" is everywhere. I don't
think people who don't openly identify as feminists really know what it's
like to have to be constantly defending one's self from every sexist that
places himself (or, more rarely but occasionally, herself) in one's way,
looking for a fight ("I know she's a feminist; I'm sure to get a rise out
of her"). When people know you're a feminist, you become a target.
Sometimes it's necessary to retreat to get one's energy back for the next
of the never-ending rounds.
If an individual woman has to extricate herself from these
situations every once in a while, people should understand why. It isn't
out of cowardice; if I was a coward, I wouldn't have posted what I posted
in the first place. It's out of an occasional feeling that other people
don't care or aren't willing to take action, which is why it's important
for other people (women AND men) who oppose sexism to criticize it
publicly when they see it, as so many people here have done, rather than
leave it to The Feminist(s). It's also insulting and demoralizing to be
branded as a book-burner, a moral entrepreneur, a hypersensitive bitch,
and a man-hater at every turn for expressing views which one holds dear
and which are not designed to oppress or hurt anyone. It's been
interesting to note the extent to which I and other women who've
criticized sexism on the group are the ones who are targetted for
criticism by those who don't see anything wrong with sexist
quotations. The men who support our views don't seem to be challenged
nearly as often. (It'll be interesting to see what happens now; will
people tell you off for posting what you did, or will I become the target
for THIS post?) I don't want every moment of my life to be taken up with
an endless battle to oppose sexism; I have many other interests and want
to devote energy to them too. From time to time, I get tired of being The
Feminist that is expected to rise to all bait, especially when I feel no
one else is willing to do "their bit." (And no, I'm not assuming every is
anti-sexist and would want to oppose sexism; clearly, this isn't the case.
But even those who do oppose it often keep silent, and understandably so,
to avoid conflict.)
I'm encouraged by many of the responses to this and related
threads; that's what has made it possible for me to withstand the insults
that have been directed at me for expressing my views and to defend myself
against those insults. If this newsgroup was a place where ONLY sexist
stuff was posted, I wouldn't have come back. I have bigger and more
important battles to fight around sexism in the academy. Some people are
simply not willing to think about the effects of sexism or other forms of
oppression on other people, and the trick is to figure out what
interventions are going to be productive, and which ones are just going to
be demoralizing and fruitless.
Best wishes and thanks for your post,
Emma
> "Don't let the bastards grind you down!" --Unknown
See, THAT'S the kind of thing that keeps me going!
*********************************************************************
Emma Whelan <ewh...@chat.carleton.ca>
Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa
"Only the naive or the scurrilous believe the Third Wave claim that
'information is power'. Power is power, and information is
particularly useful to those who are already powerful."
- Philip Bereano
**********************************************************************
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on Tue, 26 May 1998 21:21:56 +0100,
Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>I will not go into them for this is alt.quotes and I am not interested
>in alt.feminsm.
I have a list
-- Jos. McCarthy
(for non-US readers: McCarthy was a US Senator and
right-wing demagogue during the period following the
Second World War.
McCarthy's favorite tactic was accusation- by-innuendo
and guilt-by-association. He would brandish a sheaf of
papers and claim "I have a list" of Communists in
prominent places. His power to destroy careers and
lives made him generally feared until a few courageous
souls finally stood up to him and dared him to put his
"list" on the table. At which point -mirabile dictu-
it turned out that he had no credible evidence at all,
and his empire collapsed like the house of cards it
was.
The first tragedy is that, despite his being thoroughly
discredited, many people were never able to recover
from the damage he did with his lies.
The second tragedy is that we haven't learned much
meanwhile, and his spiritual descendents can still get
away with their version of "I have a list".
Feh! )
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Tarbet / tar...@swaa.com / Cambridge Massachusetts USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
"What luck for rulers, that men do not think."
-- A. Hitler, Führer der NSDAP
nyct...@my-dejanews.com
In article <199805261748...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
scott...@aol.com (ScottH9999) wrote:
>
>
> It is interesting that Harald Johnson and Graham Weeks defend their sexist
> postings by claiming that they only wish to "provoke" and not offend, or
> because it is merely "good natured humor". But though THEY do not admit it,
or
> understand this about themselves, the fact that they do post sexist material
> (from any other motive than to oppose it) shows they are indeed sexists.
That
> is clear enough to most of us.
>
And following your path of logic we should presume that everyone who posts in
favour of your comments is an upstanding individual, much like yourself, who
has a perfectly clean record.
Scott, I am sure that you've never made any remarks that could be considered
"sexist" but let us not speculate on that which we do not know.
> Harald Johnson, though, goes further, and tries to silence or drive out
anyone
> who objects to his sexism. Avoiding all delicacy, he is a jerk. There may at
> least be some hope for winning over Graham, who probably has an inkling that
> his sexist comments are serving to discredit religion. (A point I happily
try
> to drive home at every opportunity.)
>
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
Scott, don't you think it is hypocritical to say that Harald attempts to
"silence or drive out anyone who objects" him and then go on to state we
should "hound people like Harald Johnson when they post ... bad opinions?"
You then concluded with the notion that if we can't win them over and "some
people get driven out of the newsgroup by all the hounding, it should be
individuals like them."
---
The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the
wrong reason. --T. S. Eliot
nyct...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6kf9qa$1ur$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
ewh...@chat.carleton.ca (Emma Whelan) wrote:
>
> [clipped]
>
> This newsgroup is not the only place where I've encountered
> sexism. My life as a feminist sociologist and graduate student has been
> full of little daily battles--male faculty making sexually harassing
> remarks, telling me about their sex lives and preferences for particular
> sexual activities, asking me to their places for dinner and "a nice bottle
> of wine", making sexist jokes, commenting on my clothes, my body, and my
> sex life, speculating on whether I'm sleeping with my (male) supervisor
> (and no, I'm not); male graduate students calling me a 'virago' in the
> midst of a purely academic debate about something completely unrelated to
> feminism, etc. And this is in a supposedly 'progressive' discipline.
There really was no need to detail how you are *not* sleeping with your
"(male) supervisor."
> While everyone who knows me knows I'm anything but a shrinking violet, I
> only have so much energy to battle every sexist incident I witness. I'm
> thankful that others in this group and elsewhere are able to pick up the
> ball every once in a while. The constant feminist-bashing and misogyny
> that I read about and witness in my daily life can be quite exhausting,
> and I have to pick my battles.
Being a "feminist sociologist" it isn't surprising that you read about
"feminist-bashing and misogyny" on a daily basis.
There are two sides to a coin and you primarily deal with one side.
> Even in supposedly feminist venues on Usenet (eg. alt.feminism,
> which someone suggested I join), the most frequent posters are
> anti-feminists looking for a fight. The "front" is everywhere. I don't
> think people who don't openly identify as feminists really know what it's
> like to have to be constantly defending one's self from every sexist that
> places himself (or, more rarely but occasionally, herself) in one's way,
> looking for a fight ("I know she's a feminist; I'm sure to get a rise out
> of her"). When people know you're a feminist, you become a target.
> Sometimes it's necessary to retreat to get one's energy back for the next
> of the never-ending rounds.
Why do you feel the need to defend yourself from others for being a feminist?
One should not need to defend their lifestyle if they are comfortable with it.
> If an individual woman has to extricate herself from these
> situations every once in a while, people should understand why. It isn't
> out of cowardice; if I was a coward, I wouldn't have posted what I posted
> in the first place. It's out of an occasional feeling that other people
> don't care or aren't willing to take action, which is why it's important
> for other people (women AND men) who oppose sexism to criticize it
> publicly when they see it, as so many people here have done, rather than
You are blurring the real issue here.
You want people to criticize individuals in alt.quotations for posting quotes.
What if I were to suggest that we criticize feminist in alt.feminism because
they only posted feminist related issues that I deem offensive. Do you think
they would accomodate me?
The issue is that you want somebody to stop posting material which *you* deem
offensive.
> leave it to The Feminist(s). It's also insulting and demoralizing to be
> branded as a book-burner, a moral entrepreneur, a hypersensitive bitch,
> and a man-hater at every turn for expressing views which one holds dear
> and which are not designed to oppress or hurt anyone. It's been
You are now expressing your frustrations in life which did not originate from
this discussion.
Unless I've missed some message, I don't recall anybody applying those labels
to you in this forum.
> interesting to note the extent to which I and other women who've
> criticized sexism on the group are the ones who are targetted for
> criticism by those who don't see anything wrong with sexist
> quotations. The men who support our views don't seem to be challenged
> nearly as often. (It'll be interesting to see what happens now; will
> people tell you off for posting what you did, or will I become the target
> for THIS post?) I don't want every moment of my life to be taken up with
> an endless battle to oppose sexism; I have many other interests and want
> to devote energy to them too. From time to time, I get tired of being The
> Feminist that is expected to rise to all bait, especially when I feel no
> one else is willing to do "their bit." (And no, I'm not assuming every is
> anti-sexist and would want to oppose sexism; clearly, this isn't the case.
> But even those who do oppose it often keep silent, and understandably so,
> to avoid conflict.)
I may take some flack for this but here it goes...
You are clearly _whining_ in this message about the lack of support you are
receiving for your cause.
I don't believe that feminism achieved what it has today by using these
tactics so there is no reason that they should be used here to entice more
sympathy.
> I'm encouraged by many of the responses to this and related
> threads; that's what has made it possible for me to withstand the insults
> that have been directed at me for expressing my views and to defend myself
> against those insults. If this newsgroup was a place where ONLY sexist
> stuff was posted, I wouldn't have come back. I have bigger and more
> important battles to fight around sexism in the academy. Some people are
> simply not willing to think about the effects of sexism or other forms of
> oppression on other people, and the trick is to figure out what
> interventions are going to be productive, and which ones are just going to
> be demoralizing and fruitless.
>
> Best wishes and thanks for your post,
> Emma
>
Emma, have you given some thought to how "some people are simply not willing
to think about the effects of sexism or _other_ forms of oppression on other
people?"
It just depends on which side of the fence you are standing on to feel the
effects of oppression.
nyct...@my-dejanews.com
In article <356b3c22....@news.std.com>,
tar...@swaa.com wrote:
>
> I have a list
> -- Jos. McCarthy
>
> (for non-US readers: McCarthy was a US Senator and
> right-wing demagogue during the period following the
> Second World War.
>
Was that the same US Senator who kept throwing logs into the fire in an
attempt to fuel it further?
Graham Weeks
In article <199805261748...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
scott...@aol.com (ScottH9999) wrote:
> >
> >
> > It is interesting that Harald Johnson and Graham Weeks defend their sexist
> > postings by claiming that they only wish to "provoke" and not offend, or
> > because it is merely "good natured humor". But though THEY do not admit it,
> or
> > understand this about themselves, the fact that they do post sexist material
> > (from any other motive than to oppose it) shows they are indeed sexists.
> That
> > is clear enough to most of us.
> >
Clear as the mud in circular reasoning .
You define sexist as a poster of what you say is sexist material.
If I find humour in a given subject that means I have a bad attitude to
it? No. It means I do not find it sacred or beyond a joke. This includes
race, gender, religion, mothers in law etc
I usually try to resist temptation but just for once I shall follow
Wilde's advice and give in.
How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
One, AND ITS NOT FUNNY
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on Wed, 27 May 1998 05:00:45 GMT,
nyct...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Was that the same US Senator who kept throwing logs into the fire in an
>attempt to fuel it further?
??????
MnsaChck
myct...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>I may take some flack for this but here it goes...
>
>You are clearly _whining_ in this message about the lack of support you are
receiving for your cause.
>
>I don't believe that feminism achieved what it has today by using >these
tactics so there is no reason that they should be used here >to entice more
sympathy
Amen! I've kept quiet on this until now in the interest of not prolonging the
thread further, but now I just have to say, "Enough already!" No matter who
you are or what you think,you are going to encounter someone here whose opinion
differs (sometimes offensively) from yours. Oh well. Debate your causes
elsewhere; post quotes here. Please.
Thank you.
"I love mankind; it's people I can't stand"
Linus van Pelt
Becky
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anyone, come sit next to me."
Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on Wed, 27 May 1998 04:57:09 GMT,
nyct...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>There really was no need to detail how you are *not* sleeping with your
>"(male) supervisor."
it's an unusual perception that equates a parenthetical
"and no, I'm not" to "detail[ing]". :-)
>Why do you feel the need to defend yourself from others for being a feminist?
>
>One should not need to defend their lifestyle if they are comfortable with it.
Ask Rush Limbic about that. Ask plenty gay men and
lesbians about that, particularly the ones who've been
(e.g.) sacked from their jobs. Ask people of color
about that. Hell, ask non-conservatives about that :-}
We don't live in a vacuum, and not all oppressive
forces wear jackboots.
Margaret Tarbet / tar...@swaa.com / Cambridge Massachusetts USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an
advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies
as against despots. What is it? Distrust.
-- Demosthenes
Don Olivier
Margaret Tarbet wrote:
> In alt.quotations on Mon, 25 May 1998 07:07:28 +0100,
> Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >This would be fine, I could say, Amen, except for the fact that it is an
> >example of the fallacy of nothingbuttery.
> >There is more to feminism than this.
> Sorry, Graham, but no, you're wrong.
> ...
> Feminism is a very simple proposition.
This calls for some quotes:
For me, to be a feminist is to answer the
question ``Are women human?'' with a yes.
-- Katha Pollitt, _Reasonable Creatures_
Should a woman be treated as a human being, and if not, why not?
... The word `feminism'... might well be summed up in one sentence
addressed to mankind: `Recognize our full humanity, and we will
trouble you no more'.
-- Brittan and Holtby
People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that
differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.
-- Rebecca West
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Olivier ** Harvard School of Public Health ** d...@hsph.harvard.edu
Xjr3000
Emma Whelan (ewh...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
>This newsgroup is not the only place where I've encountered
>sexism. My life as a feminist sociologist and graduate student has >been
>full of little daily battles--male faculty making sexually harassing
>remarks, telling me about their sex lives and preferences for >particular
>sexual activities, asking me to their places for dinner and "a nice >bottle
>of wine", making sexist jokes, commenting on my clothes, my >body, and my
>sex life, speculating on whether I'm sleeping with my (male) supervisor
>(and no, I'm not); male graduate students calling me a 'virago' in >the
>midst of a purely academic debate about something completely >unrelated to
>feminism, etc. And this is in a supposedly 'progressive' discipline.
[snip]
>The constant feminist-bashing and misogyny
>that I read about and witness in my daily life can be quite >exhausting,
>and I have to pick my battles.
> Even in supposedly feminist venues on Usenet (eg. >alt.feminism,
>which someone suggested I join), the most frequent posters are
>anti-feminists looking for a fight. The "front" is everywhere. I >don't
>think people who don't openly identify as feminists really know >what it's
>like to have to be constantly defending one's self from every sexist that
>places himself (or, more rarely but occasionally, herself) in one's >way,
>looking for a fight ("I know she's a feminist; I'm sure to get a rise >out
>of her").
Two thousand (six thousand?) years of male stupidity and ignorance about women
will not be overcome in a day, a year, or perhaps even in our lifetimes, but
men especially have to try if they want to truly consider themselves part of a
"human" race-- _homo sapiens sapiens_ -- and not just a mythical "male" race.
"Sapiens" means capable of thinking, and there has been very little of it in
evidence by some of the male members of this Newsgroup on this topic. It's
rather been "shoot from the hip" or "off the top of my head.".
If you think the abuse and humiliation Ms. Whelan has had to put up with as an
academic and as a woman is an isolated case of "soreheadism", think again.
Case in point: when I was a member of a self-styled august University, I
watched in despair as a brilliant female professor was denied tenure and
hounded out of the department by the Chairman in concert with a few male
faculty members
who deeply resented the fact that she was far more qualified than they were.
The pressure was constant, unfair, unsubtle and completely unjust but there was
no recourse for the professor who never described or considered herself as a
"feminist"-- whatever that means in this context. She just happened to be the
only woman on
an all-male faculty that wanted to stay that way, and she was thus considered
fair "game."
The hunt metaphor is apt-- women are fair game in this society, and it is
considered acceptable to "shoot at will," and sometimes, "shoot to kill."
If you are not a woman and pretend to understand how that feels, you are only
kidding yourself, just as you are deluding yourself if you think you can feel
what any other persecuted group suffers unless you are actually a member of it.
If you can't empathize, or won't attempt to learn how to, perhaps you had
better "pause and reflect," as Mark Twain said in another context.
When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and
reflect.
-Mark Twain, Notebooks, 1904
This oligarchy of sex, which make fathers, brothers, husbands and sons, the
oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters of every
household-- which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries
dissension, discord, and rebellion into every house of the nation...
Men their rights and nothing more;
women, their rights and nothing less.
-Susan Brownell Anthony, Address, _Women's Rights to Suffrage_,
1873
There are certain natural rights as inalienable to civilization...The natural
rights of the civilized man and woman are government, property, the harmonious
development of all their powers, and the gratification of their desires... The
individual may be put in the stocks , body and soul, he may be dwarfed,
crippled, killed, but his rights no man can get; they live and die with him...
Any of you can readily see the defects in other governments...but when we come
to our own case, we are blinded by custom and self-interest.
Some of you who have no capital can see the injustice which the laborer
suffers; some of you who have no slaves, can see the cruelty of his oppression;
but who of you appreciate the galling humiliation, the refinements of
degradation, to which women (the mothers, wives. sisters and daughters of
freemen) are subject,
in this last half of the nineteenth century? How many of you have
even read the laws concerning them that now disgrace your statute-books?
In cruelty and tyranny, they are not surpassed by any slaveholding code in the
Southern States; in fact, they are worse, by just so far as a woman, from her
social position, refinement, and education, is on a more equal ground with the
oppressor...
The prejudice against color, of which we hear so much, is no stronger than that
against sex. It is produced by the same cause, and manifested very much in the
same way. The negro's skin and the woman's sex are both _prima facie_ evidence
that they were intended to be in subjection to the white Saxon man.
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Speech to the New York State Legislature,
February 18, 1860, which succeeded in persuading the legislators to enact laws
securing married women's rights to their property and their children.
The greatest and noblest pleasure which we have in
this world is to discover new truths,
and the next is to shake off old prejudices.
-Frederick II, the Great
-.-.-.-.-.-.Jay-.-.-. xjr...@aol.com -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
William C Waterhouse
In article <356b0832...@news.netonecom.net>, hran...@netonecom.net writes:
>...
> She wanted to cry "Ah! men," but "Ah! men" stuck in her throat.
> --W.S. Gilbert (more or less)
Princess Ida, Act II, Melissa speaking:
I blushed and stammered so that she exclaimed,
"Can these be men?" Then, seeing this, "Why, these--"
"Are men," she would have answered, but "are men"
Stuck in her throat.
William C. Waterhouse
Penn State
Graham Weeks
Don Olivier wrote:
>
> Margaret Tarbet wrote:
snip
> > ...
> > Feminism is a very simple proposition.
>
> This calls for some quotes:
>
> For me, to be a feminist is to answer the
> question ``Are women human?'' with a yes.
> -- Katha Pollitt, _Reasonable Creatures_
>
> Should a woman be treated as a human being, and if not, why not?
> ... The word `feminism'... might well be summed up in one sentence
> addressed to mankind: `Recognize our full humanity, and we will
> trouble you no more'.
> -- Brittan and Holtby
>
> People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that
> differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.
> -- Rebecca West
And a little balance.
Women’s Liberation is just a lot of foolishness. Golda Meir,
Israeli prime minister Newsweek, October 23, 1972
I owe nothing to Women’s Lib.
Margaret Thatcher The Observer December 1, 1974
What the radical feminists have in fact accomplished is projecting a
vision and an agenda of sexual 'liberation' that have had the net effect
of making it easier for husbands to dump their wives and children. They
have also made it harder for new
families to form, by creating a contentious atmosphere between the
sexes. Women and men have both lost out, in different ways, in all this.
Children have of course lost out worst of all from the decline of
families. Yet the feminazis have made
'childhood poverty' one of their political cries. They are shameless.
Dr. Thomas Sowell
--
Graham J Weeks
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/index.html
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
*******************************************************************
Unity in things Necessary, Liberty in things Unnecessary, and Charity in
all. Richard Baxter 1651
*******************************************************************
Emma Whelan
nyct...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[bits of my previous post snipped]
> Being a "feminist sociologist" it isn't surprising that you read about
> "feminist-bashing and misogyny" on a daily basis.
Exactly...my post, to which you were responding, was in response to the
criticism of my initial announcement of my intentions to leave the group.
My message was an attempt to explain why neither I, nor any individual
woman or feminist, should be expected to do battle with every incident of
sexism; there are simply too many of them, and one has to pick one's
battles.
> There are two sides to a coin and you primarily deal with one side.
It seems to me that there are plenty of others who are doing the same for
the opposite side, you and Graham Weeks among them. So it all balances
out, doesn't it?
> Why do you feel the need to defend yourself from others for being a feminist?
> One should not need to defend their lifestyle if they are comfortable with it.
Clearly, if I was uncomfortable about being a feminist, I wouldn't have
posted what I've posted. What is one supposed to do but defend one's self
when one is accused of being censorial for simply expressing contrary
views on this newsgroup?
> You are blurring the real issue here.
> You want people to criticize individuals in alt.quotations for posting quotes.
Clearly, I am not criticizing individuals for posting quotations per se;
this is a quotations newsgroup, and I like quotations, hence I subscribe
to this newsgroup. But it doesn't follow that I therefore like all
quotations or that I am disallowed from criticizing those I don't like.
> What if I were to suggest that we criticize feminist in alt.feminism because
> they only posted feminist related issues that I deem offensive. Do you think
> they would accomodate me?
Alt.feminism is a newsgroup about feminism; hence anyone who objects to
the posting of feminist material there is not being sensible (though, of
course, there are plenty of such people on alt.feminism; in fact, they
outnumber those who post feminist material, which is one of the reasons
that I don't subscribe to it--too many trolls). But alt.quotations is a
general quotations newsgroup, and I subscribe to it not to read the sexist
quotations, but to read the others. If the newsgroup was called
alt.sexistquotations, and I objected to the fact that sexist quotations
were posted, i would be missing the point of the newsgroup. In this case,
I am objecting to a specific type of quotation, not to the raison d'etre
of this newsgroup.
> The issue is that you want somebody to stop posting material which *you* deem
> offensive.
In fact, as you'll know if you've carefully read my posts, I have never
tried to stop anyone from posting anything (it would be rather difficult
to do so, after all). I have simply criticized the posting of sexist
quotations that offend me and others, in accordance with the principles of
free speech. Free speech does not mean one can't be criticized for what
one says; it simply means one can't be prevented from speaking.
> You are now expressing your frustrations in life which did not originate from
> this discussion.
You're missing the point, which was, if you'll remember, that I was
objecting to the notion that, as a woman and a feminist, I am required to
take on every sexist individual who crosses my path; I pointed out there
are too many such individuals for me to do battle with each one, and the
more serious battles (like the ones that affect my professional life) are
the ones I must prioritize.
> Unless I've missed some message, I don't recall anybody applying those labels
> to you in this forum.
True, I was being hyperbolic, but there have been suggestions that I'm
opposed to free speech (the "book-burner" hyperbole); the word "feminazi"
has been posted more than once, as a means of attempting to draw false
links between feminism and fascism; and I have been repeatedly accused of
being hypersensitive, and of moral entrepreneurship (you accused me of
styling myself as "beacon for the misguided," I believe).
> I may take some flack for this but here it goes...
> You are clearly _whining_ in this message about the lack of support you are
> receiving for your cause.
> I don't believe that feminism achieved what it has today by using these
> tactics so there is no reason that they should be used here to entice more
> sympathy.
It's quite clear that I'm not going to get much sympathy from you, and
frankly, that isn't a goal of mine. I did not post what I posted to win
you over (clearly, that's a lost cause; and as I've said, I've learned to
pick my battles), but to answer a particular post that criticized me for
wanting to take a much-needed reprieve from sexism in my leisure time,
when my work life is so full of sexism.
> Emma, have you given some thought to how "some people are simply not willing
> to think about the effects of sexism or _other_ forms of oppression on other
> people?"
Yes, plenty; or, at least, not so much "how" some people aren't willing to
do so, but rather "why" they aren't.
> It just depends on which side of the fence you are standing on to feel the
> effects of oppression.
That's quite insightful, actually, and something that feminists and other
activists have been saying for years: that you don't what oppression
feels like unless you've been oppressed. I suppose I was trying to let
you know what oppression (in my case, not even that severe, when compared
to what other people have been through) feels like. Obviously, once
again, I was unsuccessful.
As for the person who shouted "Amen!" to nyctalux's post and pleaded for a
return to the posting of quotations: I would hasten to remind her/him
that this thread started out with a long list of quotations that I posted;
that I have posted only two follow-ups while nyctalux has posted
significantly more than that; and that nyctalux's posts haven't exactly
been chock-a-block with quotations. You might want to rethink your
support for that particular preacher.
But, in response to that plea, here are a few quotations to chew on:
"Ignorance is no excuse--it's the real thing." - Irene Peter
"Well, time wounds all heals." - Jane Ace
"We don't call it sin today, we call it self-expression." - Mary Stocks
"Social science affirms that a woman's place in society marks the
level of civilization." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
"The source of justice is not vengeance, but charity." - Bridget of Sweden
"So many gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
When just the art of being kind
Is all the sad world needs." - Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Cheers,
Emma
Gareth Owen
Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk> writes:
>
> And a little balance.
>
> I owe nothing to Women's Lib.
> Margaret Thatcher The Observer December 1, 1974
But, she didn't owe much to compassion, respect, dignity, politeness or
tolerance either, so maybe thats not such a good person to be quoting.
--
Gareth Owen
Table manners are for people with nothing better to do.
ScottH9999
>Subject: Re: a little balance
>Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 00:00 EDT
>Message-id: <6kg341$t91$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
>In article <199805261748...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> scott...@aol.com (ScottH9999) wrote:
>>
>> It is interesting that Harald Johnson and Graham Weeks defend their sexist
>> postings by claiming that they only wish to "provoke" and not offend, or
>> because it is merely "good natured humor". But though THEY do not admit it,
>> or understand this about themselves, the fact that they do post sexist
>> material (from any other motive than to oppose it) shows they are indeed
sexists.
>>That is clear enough to most of us.
>>
>
>favour of your comments is an upstanding individual, much like yourself, who
>has a perfectly clean record.
>
>Scott, I am sure that you've never made any remarks that could be considered
>"sexist" but let us not speculate on that which we do not know.
>
I don't make many such remarks anymore, because I consciously try to think and
act toward women as equal human beings. But I recognize that I live in a very
backward society, and it would be very surprising if I did not slip into such
reactionary modes of thought myself from time to time. But when I do, I hope
there will be people around me who will point out the error of my ways.
The issue is not whether I (or any other person) is perfect; the issue is
whether we should criticize sexist, racist, and other outrageous views when we
see them, and regardless who utters them. To say "Nobody is perfect"--though it
is of course true--in no way can justify the spewing of reactionary bullshit by
some individuals.
>> Harald Johnson, though, goes further, and tries to silence or drive out
>> anyone who objects to his sexism. Avoiding all delicacy, he is a jerk. There
>> may at least be some hope for winning over Graham, who probably has an
>> inkling that his sexist comments are serving to discredit religion. (A point
I
>> happily try to drive home at every opportunity.)
>>
>
>Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
>: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
>
>Scott, don't you think it is hypocritical to say that Harald attempts to
>"silence or drive out anyone who objects" him and then go on to state we
>should "hound people like Harald Johnson when they post ... bad opinions?"
>
>You then concluded with the notion that if we can't win them over and "some
>people get driven out of the newsgroup by all the hounding, it should be
>individuals like them."
>
It is not in the least hypocritical. First of all, I never said that I thought
ALL views have an equal "right" to be expressed in this newsgroup (or anywhere
else). I do not claim to be a liberal. Pro-Nazi views, or KKK racist crap, for
example, have no place here. But it is not really a question of rights, or
free-speech, at all. I am not proposing the forcible exclusion of anybody; and
there is, in any case, no way to do it at present. (Fortunately!) What I
propose for the way to deal with outrageously bad views is simply intense
social pressure, intense social criticism. Let the most backward people have
their say, but then criticize them in depth.
Social criticism of what is erroneous is actually a MUCH BETTER way of dealing
with it than merely suppressing it--NOT, as liberals say, because such
suppression is always wrong, but because the point for us Marxists is to
educate people so they can recognize and criticize everything that goes against
the people's interests.
Far from wanting to suppress reactionary views in this newsgroup, I am actually
glad to see them expressed so that those of us who recognize just how bad these
views are can criticize them, and help other people (who may not be so clear on
things) learn to see how bad they are, and learn to join in with the criticism.
People have to LEARN to struggle for what is right. You see, this newsgroup
does not really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. (It would
be no great victory to drive out all those I disagree with, for example.) It is
society at large that is the problem. This newsgroup, like the Internet as a
whole, is just one more school of struggle. The goal is to bring some
fundamental changes to society as a whole, changes both in its organization,
and in how people think.
One thing that needs to be brought out in such criticism are the sources of
such backward views. Why do Harald and Graham have the backward views on women
that they do, for example? In Graham's case, religion seems to be a major
factor; at the very least, it is clear that all his extensive religious
training has in no way led to any diminution of his sexist outlook, and most
likely it has led to its intensification. It is important for people to realize
that religion both historically and in the present day, is one of the major
sources of hostility toward (and oppression of) women. People cannot free
themselves from oppression until they learn the sources of that oppression, who
is responsible and why.
Graham apparently does not recognize even that he is a sexist, let alone that
his religion has fostered this outlook. He does not even recognize that his
sexist comments serve to discredit religion. That's ok, in fact it is
excellent! (It just further proves my point.) Some others are gradually
learning to recognize this fact, though often they find it a bit distressing at
first. All the dozens of anti-women quotes by religious authorities that I and
others have posted certainly lends a great deal of credence to my claim. To
remind you, here are just a couple:
"Man was made to rule, women to obey." --St. Augustine, "De Genesi"
"No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise." --Martin Luther
By "hounding people" who express awful opinions, I do not primarily mean
chasing them away, or even silencing them necessarily--though it may have this
effect in some cases. What I favor, I'll say again, is intense criticism of
their backward views--so that ever more people can discover just how bad these
views are, their sources, which classes and social forces propagate these views
hostile to the people, and so forth. The goal is the improvement of people's
thinking in general, not the suppression of a few of the worst voices.
But on the other hand, if a few people do get hounded so much that they end up
abandoning this newsgroup, it is much better if it is those with the most
backward views, rather than those with the most progressive views, the views
most supportive of the overall interests of the people. For the whole
forseeable future there are bound be many very backward people--even among the
masses--who just cannot be won over for now to a stance which even shows any
respect for women, other races and nationalities, etc.--let alone which
actively champions equality and the people's interests in general. These
backward people can at least serve one function--that of being negative
examples!
You may not agree with my perspective, but I hope you can now see that there is
not the slightest bit of inconsistency or hypocrisy in my approach. The real
hypocrisy lies with those who spout sexist drivel and who yet claim not to be
sexists. They do not have the courage to openly defend their heartfelt
convictions.
--Scott Harrison
"The well-meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me little
different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit." --Carl
Sagan, "Broca's Brain" (1978), p. xiv.
BinneBrook
STOP THIS!!! Jaysus Mary and Blessed St. Joseph I'd thought this was put to bed
a week ago!
Score to date:
Sexists........................................0
Feminists...................................0
Soi-disant nonfeminists.....0
Anti-feminists........................0
Protofeminists........................0
Harald..........................................0
Scott............................................0
Graham........................................0
Bin.................................................0
Emma............................................0
Margaret......................................0
Have I left anyone out? Why does it take three women with PMS to change a light
bulb? IT JUST FUCKING DOES!!
"Don't call me honey, Mac!"
"Well, don't call me Mac, Honey!"
Five Easy Pieces -- Bob Rafaelson?
"Thunder is good. Thunder is impressive. But it's the lightning does the
work."
Mark Twain, letter to unidentified person
So enough with the thunder. We all know how everyone in this group feels about
the subject at hand. I say, moratorium on sexist jibes and feminist outrage.
It's not fun anymore. And, as I used to say to my son when he was little and
had a difference of opinion with one of his buddies as to whose firetruck it
was: "I don't care who started it. Gimme the firetruck. You can have it back
when you're playing nicely again. Go ahead and tell your mother, if you don't
like it."
Shortest short story in the world:
"Yeah? Yeah!"
Bin --- "....to die, and never have seen Brooklyn..." --Anne Sexton
BinneBrook
By way of a decent burial:
A little balance is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the equanimitous spring.
Xjr3000
Graham Weeks <wee...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>Don Olivier wrote:
>>
>> Margaret Tarbet wrote:
>snip
>> > ...
>> > Feminism is a very simple proposition.
>>
>> This calls for some quotes:
>>
>> For me, to be a feminist is to answer the
>> question ``Are women human?'' with a yes.
>> -- Katha Pollitt, _Reasonable Creatures_
>>
>> Should a woman be treated as a human being, and if not, why >>not?
>> ... The word `feminism'... might well be summed up in one >>sentence
>> addressed to mankind: `Recognize our full humanity, and we >>will
>> trouble you no more'.
>> -- Brittan and Holtby
>>
>> People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that
>> differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.
>> -- Rebecca West
>
>And a little balance.
>
[snip]
>What the radical feminists have in fact accomplished is projecting >a
>vision and an agenda of sexual 'liberation' that have had the net >effect
>of making it easier for husbands to dump their wives and children. >They
>have also made it harder for new
>families to form, by creating a contentious atmosphere between >the
>sexes. Women and men have both lost out, in different ways, in >all this.
>Children have of course lost out worst of all from the decline of
>families. Yet the feminazis have made
>'childhood poverty' one of their political cries. They are >shameless
>
>Dr. Thomas Sowell
Reply of the "feminazis" to Dr. Sowell :)
People of ability and talents
Often are a little off their balance;
It's very plain
There is a strain
Upon their brain.
Even Mr. Edwin Booth and Barrett
Had a little mousey in the garret.
Though they were bright,
They weren't quite right.
-Lorenz Hart, lyrics for "I'm a Fool Little One," play,
_Present Arms_, 1928
The fact that a human brain of high amperage, otherwise highly efficient, may
have a hole in it is surely not a secret.
-H L Mencken, _Chicago Sunday Tribune_, April 26, 1925.
I feel at home with you.
Your brain is dumber
Than that of a plumber.
That's why I feel at home with you.
I'll match my dome with you.
Your brain needs a tonic--
It's still embryonic.
That's why I feel at home with you.
Our minds are featherweight--
Their together weight
Can't amount to much.
You use no better words
than three-letter words...
You have no head at all.
Something like your knob
Is used as a doorknob.
That's why I feel at home with you...
-Lorenz Hart, lyrics for "I Feel at Home with You,"
_A Connecticut Yankee_, 1927
I mumble, humble, jumble,
I grovel to your cloth.
I shiver and I stumble.
I'm glad to bring you broth!
Oh, most profoundly practical profundity,
I must reapect your dignified rotundity!
I stutter. I mutter.
With genuflections low.
My heart is soft as butter,
But this is hard to show.
Oh, stateliest serene ecclesiastical,
My future is monastical!
-Lorenz Hart, lyrics for "I Grovel at Your Cloth,"
_Chee-Chee_, 1928
Stephen Brereton
But on the other hand, if a few people do get hounded so much that they end
up
>abandoning this newsgroup, it is much better if it is those with the most
>backward views, rather than those with the most progressive views, the
views
>most supportive of the overall interests of the people.
What an illuminating comment! To borrow a quote from Animal Farm "All
animals are equal but some are more equal than others" Just change the word
animals to opinions and you will get my point.
Seems to me this is how most injustices are defended.
Steve brereton
ScottH9999
>Subject: Re: a little balance
>Date: Sat, May 30, 1998 06:33 EDT
>Message-id: <#gvlkq7i9GA.221@upnetnews05>
If you do not understand that some opinions are better than others, then you
are beyond all hope.
"The well-meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me little
different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit." --Carl
Sagan, "Broca's Brain" (1978), p. xiv.
Opinions that favor of the interests of the people (which, for your
information, includes women) are indeed good, and those which oppose the
people's interests, which are harmful to them, which disrespect them, and so
forth, are indeed bad. I would have hoped that much would be obvious.
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ
from the prejudices of their social evironment. Most people are even incapable
for forming such opinions." --Albert Einstein
Unfortunately, the prejudices of present society--including this newsgroup,
apparently--are hostile to the interests of women, and very disrespectful of
women. And people like you try to defend that with the very silly argument that
"all opinions are equal". If you must defend sexist opinions, at least use
better arguments than that!
--Scott Harrison
"Many who have at last made the discovery the Negroes have some rights, as well
as other members of the human family, have yet to be convinced that women are
entitled to any." --Frederick Douglass, 1848.
Barry Fetter
scott...@aol.com (ScottH9999) wrote:
>If you do not understand that some opinions are better than others, then you
>are beyond all hope.
4124 Science is the father of knowledge,
but opinion breeds ignorance.
Hippocrates (B.C. 460-370)
+--------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Barry Fetter | What is mind? No matter. |
| mcr...@quotations.com | What is matter? Never mind. |
| 6116 Merced Ave. #81 | What's the difference? It's immaterial. |
| Oakland, CA 94611 | Thomas Key (1799 - 1875) |
| FAX 510-444-6561 | (first two lines) |
+--------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
Stephen Brereton
Scott,
You seem to have misunderstood the message. The first part of it was taken
from some one elses message. The point I was trying to make, badly it seems,
was exactly the opposite. I was using the animal farm metaphor to point out
that it is very easy to trample on people's ideas on the grounds that they
are minority views. It is a very short step from denying minorities the
right to express themselves to actively hounding them. There is much
precedent in history as to the consequences for such minorities by going
down that road.
For your information I was not and never have defended sexist views. I do
however defend freedom of expression.
Steve Brereton
ScottH9999 wrote in message
<199806021754...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: a little balance
>>From: "Stephen Brereton" <Twoh...@msn.com>
>>Date: Sat, May 30, 1998 06:33 EDT
>>Message-id: <#gvlkq7i9GA.221@upnetnews05>
>>
>>But on the other hand, if a few people do get hounded so much that they
end
>>up
>>>abandoning this newsgroup, it is much better if it is those with the most
>>>backward views, rather than those with the most progressive views, the
>>views
>>>most supportive of the overall interests of the people.
>>
>>What an illuminating comment! To borrow a quote from Animal Farm "All
>>animals are equal but some are more equal than others" Just change the
word
>>animals to opinions and you will get my point.
>>
>>Seems to me this is how most injustices are defended.
>>
>>
>>Steve brereton
>
>
>If you do not understand that some opinions are better than others, then
you
>are beyond all hope.
>
ScottH9999
Stephen--
Sorry for the partial misunderstanding. I'm glad to see that there are a number
of men in this newsgroup who strongly oppose sexism.
Freedom of expression should indeed be defended. But so should intense social
criticism of what is said when it goes against the people's interests. It is
wrong to oppose such social criticism on the grounds that it "threatens"
freedom of expression. After all, criticism of others' views is also an
important part of freedom of expression.
"Criticism would, of course, be a terrible weapon if, fortunately, it were not
itself subject to criticism." --Vissarion Belinsky
--Scott Harrison
>Re: a little balance
>From: "Stephen Brereton" <Twoh...@msn.com>
>Date: Thu, Jun 4, 1998 19:13 EDT
>Message-id: <Odzf0#Ak9GA.228@upnetnews05>
Nyctalux
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."
-John Morley
ScottH9999 wrote in message
<199806051721...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Stephen Brereton
Scott,
Thanks for that.
I have no problem with your point of view.
Steve
ScottH9999
>Subject: Re: a little balance
>From: "Nyctalux" <nyct...@my-dejanews.com>
>Date: Fri, Jun 5, 1998 17:44 EDT
>Message-id: <6l9oud$110$1...@wren36.supernews.com>
>
>"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."
>-John Morley
>
><199806051721...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Stephen--
>>
>>Sorry for the partial misunderstanding. I'm glad to see that there are a
>number
>>of men in this newsgroup who strongly oppose sexism.
>>
>>Freedom of expression should indeed be defended. But so should intense
>social
>>criticism of what is said when it goes against the people's interests. It
>is
>>wrong to oppose such social criticism on the grounds that it "threatens"
>>freedom of expression. After all, criticism of others' views is also an
>>important part of freedom of expression.
>>
>>"Criticism would, of course, be a terrible weapon if, fortunately, it were
>not
>>itself subject to criticism." --Vissarion Belinsky
>>
>>--Scott Harrison
>>
>>
>
The goal is not to silence people through social criticism, but to change their
point of view. And it is amazing how effective a more or less united social
pressure can be in doing that.
Morley's comment is quite correct, "You have not converted a man because you
have silenced him." [That quote comes from his book "Rousseau", by the way.]
But if he (or she) is merely silenced, then sooner or later that silence will
be broken, and further struggle over the issue in question can take place.
Social pressure is of course a two-edged sword; when bad or false opinions
prevail, social pressure is often used to beat down any questioning of it.
Marxism, for example, is subject to tremendous hostility in capitalist society,
and this is one of the reasons many dismiss it without even a cursory
investigation.
Put it this way: social criticism is good when what it criticizes is incorrect;
it is bad when what it criticizes is correct. But there is no getting around
the fact that it is a powerful tool in either case. Few can stand up to it for
any length of time.
But that's why Belinsky's comment is so important. Even when the social
criticism attempts to suppress the truth, there will be at least a few who do
resist, and because they are really correct, their view will triumph in the
end.
--Scott Harrison
"Criticism is a dangerous enemy of error, and of hollow though revolutionary
exhortations; it is the most dependable pillar of the truth. It is its mother
and its midwife, its friend and guardian. The truth thrives on criticism." --G.
V. Plekhanov
.
Graham Weeks
ScottH9999 wrote:
snip
> Put it this way: social criticism is good when what it criticizes is incorrect;
> it is bad when what it criticizes is correct. But there is no getting around
> the fact that it is a powerful tool in either case. Few can stand up to it for
> any length of time.
>
> But that's why Belinsky's comment is so important. Even when the social
> criticism attempts to suppress the truth, there will be at least a few who do
> resist, and because they are really correct, their view will triumph in the
> end.
>
Servant of God, well done! well hast thou fought
The better fight, who single hast maintained
Against revolted multitudes the cause of truth.
John Milton, 1608-1674, Paradise Lost., 6
--
Graham J Weeks
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/index.html
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
************************************************************************
The Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to
anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men. Dan. 4:17
************************************************************************
Kenneth S.
I would have to disagree with Scott on this. As is very
obvious in situations where political correctness rules, the goal IS
to silence people. If the goal were simply to change people's point
of view, reasoned argument -- not a "united social pressure" -- would
be used as the technique. However, instead of reasoned argument, we
see things like theft of newspapers from university campuses, and
threats of firing for people who express non-politically correct
views.
Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that the truth will
emerge -- or at least emerge without a long delay -- despite the
intimidation that is so obvious in many of these situations. I have
absolutely no doubt that many of the views associated with current
political correctness will eventually seem laughable. However, the
process may take decades, because of the pressures brought by those
who would suppress dissent. In addition, great damage will have been
done in the meantime.
I think this whole thing got started in this newsgroup because
someone posted quotations that others regarded as sexist. It
appeared to me that some of the objectors were seeking to suppress the
quotations simply because they didn't agree with them. Not the least
of the problems about political correctness is that it would go back
and change literature that does not conform to some people's
present-day political thinking. Shakespeare would have to conform to
the thinking of Andrea Dworkin and Mark Twain would have to be altered
to satisfy Jesse Jackson. If this were done, all perspective would be
lost.
On 06 Jun 1998 23:17:13 GMT, scott...@aol.com (ScottH9999) wrote:
>The goal is not to silence people through social criticism, but to change their
>point of view. And it is amazing how effective a more or less united social
>pressure can be in doing that.
>
>Morley's comment is quite correct, "You have not converted a man because you
>have silenced him." [That quote comes from his book "Rousseau", by the way.]
>But if he (or she) is merely silenced, then sooner or later that silence will
>be broken, and further struggle over the issue in question can take place.
>
>Social pressure is of course a two-edged sword; when bad or false opinions
>prevail, social pressure is often used to beat down any questioning of it.
>Marxism, for example, is subject to tremendous hostility in capitalist society,
>and this is one of the reasons many dismiss it without even a cursory
>investigation.
>
>Put it this way: social criticism is good when what it criticizes is incorrect;
>it is bad when what it criticizes is correct. But there is no getting around
>the fact that it is a powerful tool in either case. Few can stand up to it for
>any length of time.
>
>But that's why Belinsky's comment is so important. Even when the social
>criticism attempts to suppress the truth, there will be at least a few who do
>resist, and because they are really correct, their view will triumph in the
>end.
>
>
Eric Freeman
ScottH9999 wrote in message
<199806062317...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>The goal is not to silence people through social criticism, but to change
their
>point of view. And it is amazing how effective a more or less united social
>pressure can be in doing that.
Now we see the hypocrisy.... the Political Correctness movement, while
claiming to embrace "diversity" and "tolerance" really wants to put an end
to both. I see this every day in the political ng's, but didn't expect it
here... I was just looking for some new tag-lines.
Eric
--------------------------------
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to
live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end
for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
* C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
--------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
BinneBrook
I really thought this had been put to bed. Dopey ole me... Once more into the
breach an' like that. Sigh.
Kenneth wrote: >>I think this whole thing got started in this newsgroup because
someone posted quotations that others regarded as sexist. It appeared to me
that some of the objectors were seeking to suppress the quotations simply
because they didn't agree with them.<<
Well, you thought wrong, and you were mistaken in your impression of the
appearance of the objectors. I was going to write a little ditty, but couldn't
think of anything to rhyme with "twerp." This whole thing got started because
some shit-for-brains started posting, with regularity and great frequency,
misogynistic flames masquerading as quotes. These were unprovoked,
unsolicited, gratuitous, not in response to any other posts. They were not
anti-feminist or non-pc, they were woman-baiting, pure and
unmitigated---woman-hating unadulterated. If you spent five minutes in my
company (perish the thought), you'd realize I'm about as pc as Eudora Welty,
but I won't stand still while some peckerwood insults me using the words of
some famous person who probably hadn't gotten laid in about a decade. I won't
listen to anyone who tells me in my face that women in general are, and I in
particular am, LESS THAN. You bet I don't agree, and I'll suppress till the
fur flies. You just watch me.
Graham and everybody else, please forgive my hyperstevedorianism (this symptom
is noted in the lass with the delicate air when she starts cursing like a
longshoreman), but I've just come off a ten-hour shift of opening the mike
every twenty minutes or so and sounding like the sophisticated, refined, and
cultured lady I can be, and I'm REALLY TIRED. And I won't be pigeon-holed as
pc or non-pc, feminist or non-feminist. I'm just a working joe like everybody
else without a trust fund. I won't suppress the truth, and I won't stand for
insults. And, no, I don't defend to the death anyone's right to be a lout, an
oaf, and a churl.
Sheesh, you guys, get a gucking frip.
Bin: "Don't clap till it's really over."
Margaret Tarbet
In alt.quotations on Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:35:01 -0500,
"Eric Freeman" <some...@something.com> wrote:
>Now we see the hypocrisy.... the Political Correctness movement, while
>claiming to embrace "diversity" and "tolerance" really wants to put an end
>to both. I see this every day in the political ng's, but didn't expect it
>here... I was just looking for some new tag-lines.
Sorry, Eric, but it won't wash. Political Correctness
has switched polarities in the last few years...it's
now politically incorrect to express any feeling for
fellow humans, or any recognition that the very
_meaning_ of "society" is intimately bound up with the
welfare of all its members. _You_ are now PC, Eric,
not Scott.
>
>Eric
>
>--------------------------------
>"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
>victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to
>live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
>busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
>sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
>who torment us for our own good will torment us without end
>for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
> * C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
Either Lewis failed to note, or you to quote, that the
robber baron, too, torments people with the full
approval of his conscience. All predators consider
their exploitative behavior to be right, natural, and
inevitable, and make up self-serving myths to support
themselves. The only sane course for any of us is to
accept no tyranny whatever, regardless of the alleged
motives of the perp. Society should exist for the
mutual benefit of all, not as a way of legitimising
predation.
nyct...@my-dejanews.com
"Speak when you're angry and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret!"
Unfortunately, the true origin of the quote has long escaped my mind.
In article <199806080634...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
binne...@aol.com (BinneBrook) wrote:
>
> I really thought this had been put to bed. Dopey ole me... Once more into the
> breach an' like that. Sigh.
>
> [clipped]
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
BinneBrook
I'll eat when I'm hungry,
And drink when I'm dry,
I'll speak when I'm angry,
An I'll work till I die.
nyct...@my-dejanews.com
Hard work will never kill you,
'Tis said all over town;
Sweat is the only liquid
In which you cannot drown.
In article <199806081537...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ma...@sonic.net
In article <357b2f0e....@news.std.com>,
tar...@swaa.com wrote:
/snip all/
> >Eric
> >
> >--------------------------------
> >"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
> >victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to
> >live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
> >busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
> >sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
> >who torment us for our own good will torment us without end
> >for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
> > * C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
>
> Either Lewis failed to note, or you to quote, that the
> robber baron, too, torments people with the full
> approval of his conscience.
Yes, the quote as posted does sound a little sloppy for Lewis, unless
something followed to clarify it. I can't remember the source. Thought L's
point was more like, "with the prodding of his own conscience."
> All predators consider
> their exploitative behavior to be right, natural, and
> inevitable, and make up self-serving myths to support
> themselves. The only sane course for any of us is to
> accept no tyranny whatever, regardless of the alleged
> motives of the perp.
Very sensible.
Mary
Eric Freeman
Margaret Tarbet wrote in message <357b2f0e....@news.std.com>...
>Sorry, Eric, but it won't wash. Political Correctness
>has switched polarities in the last few years...it's
>now politically incorrect to express any feeling for
>fellow humans, or any recognition that the very
>_meaning_ of "society" is intimately bound up with the
>welfare of all its members. _You_ are now PC, Eric,
>not Scott.
Hunh??
>Either Lewis failed to note, or you to quote, that the
>robber baron, too, torments people with the full
>approval of his conscience. All predators consider
>their exploitative behavior to be right, natural, and
>inevitable, and make up self-serving myths to support
>themselves.
I would think that that varies on an individual basis.
Eric
--------------------------------
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to
live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end
for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
* C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
--------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
Eric Freeman
ma...@sonic.net wrote in message <6lkuak$qtp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Yes, the quote as posted does sound a little sloppy for Lewis, unless
>something followed to clarify it. I can't remember the source. Thought L's
>point was more like, "with the prodding of his own conscience."
I got this quote off somebody else's tag-line. I have no idea how accurate
it is.
ScottH9999
>Subject: Re: a little balance
>Date: Sun, Jun 7, 1998 08:19 EDT
>Message-id: <357a823d...@news.erols.com>
>>their point of view. And it is amazing how effective a more or less united
>>social pressure can be in doing that.
>>
>>
>>Put it this way: social criticism is good when what it criticizes is
>>incorrect; it is bad when what it criticizes is correct. But there is no
getting
>>around the fact that it is a powerful tool in either case. Few can stand up
>>to it for any length of time.
>>
>>But that's why Belinsky's comment is so important. Even when the social
>>criticism attempts to suppress the truth, there will be at least a few who
>>do resist, and because they are really correct, their view will triumph in
>>the end.
>>
>>--Scott Harrison
>>
>>"Criticism is a dangerous enemy of error, and of hollow though
>>revolutionary exhortations; it is the most dependable pillar of the truth.
>>It is its mother and its midwife, its friend and guardian. The truth thrives
>>on criticism." --G. V. Plekhanov
>>
>
>obvious in situations where political correctness rules, the goal IS
>to silence people. If the goal were simply to change people's point
>of view, reasoned argument -- not a "united social pressure" -- would
>be used as the technique. However, instead of reasoned argument, we
>see things like theft of newspapers from university campuses, and
>threats of firing for people who express non-politically correct
>views.
>
Rather than try to explain my position on this in depth in this newsgroup, I
have written an essay entitled "Social Pressure as a Moral & Political Tool"
and have posted on my web site at:
</pre><a href="http://aol.members.com/ScottH9999/essays/social_pressure.html">
http://aol.members.com/ScottH9999/essays/social_pressure.html
</a><pre>
I welcome criticisms and remarks (no matter how hostile!). To briefly summarize
what I say there relevant to Kenneth's comments above:
1. The goal of my attempt to foment social criticism of sexism in this
newsgroup was indeed to stop, or diminish, sexist postings here. I make no
apologies for that.
2. The goal was also, however, to do this by educating and reforming the
sexists--not just silence them.
3. I recognize full well that sometimes social pressure will only silence
people and not reform them. If there are sufficient other positive results
(such as education of other people) this can still be a good thing--though it
would of course be better yet if the sexists were won over as well.
4. I explain the point that people are not entirely rational creatures and that
an appeal to reason is not the only appropriate or valid method of trying to
change people's opinions and behavior.
My essay does not discuss "political correctness", and I am sorry to see
Kenneth broach the topic. It taints him as a reactionary, since condemning
"political correctness" is a favorite contemporary method of reactionaries
attempting to enforce their own brand of "political correctness". I guess I
ought to write another essay on that sorry subject.
(In the meanwhile I thank Margaret Tarbet for her very appropriate defense of
me on this issue. [Margaret: I still can't send you email either from AOL or
from my college student account.])
> Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that the truth will
>emerge -- or at least emerge without a long delay -- despite the
>intimidation that is so obvious in many of these situations. I have
>absolutely no doubt that many of the views associated with current
>political correctness will eventually seem laughable. However, the
>process may take decades, because of the pressures brought by those
>who would suppress dissent. In addition, great damage will have been
>done in the meantime.
>
No form of disputation or struggle, be it polite "rational" argument, social
criticism, or the "criticism of weapons" (in Marx's phrase) GUARANTEES that the
truth will emerge and triumph. No doubt scientific investigation and rational
argument is in fact the best road to discovering the truth. But DEFENDING and
PROPAGATING the truth, as opposed to merely discovering it, requires one to use
lots of different methods, including most of the time the methods your
opponents use or force you to use (because THEY will not listen to rational
argument, nor stop their attacks on people because of any arguments--rational
or not). I am sorry to have to point out to you that the world is not a polite
debating society or philosophy class.
> I think this whole thing got started in this newsgroup because
>someone posted quotations that others regarded as sexist. It
>appeared to me that some of the objectors were seeking to suppress the
>quotations simply because they didn't agree with them. Not the least
>of the problems about political correctness is that it would go back
>and change literature that does not conform to some people's
>present-day political thinking. Shakespeare would have to conform to
>the thinking of Andrea Dworkin and Mark Twain would have to be altered
>to satisfy Jesse Jackson. If this were done, all perspective would be
>lost.
>
No sensible person suggests changing Shakespeare or other dead authors to make
what they said more correct today. If a few crazies do say this, then we must
oppose them. (On the other hand, where past authors said wrong things they
should be criticized. Who said the dead are immune from criticism?!)
But you are basically setting up a straw man to attack. The basic form of your
argument here is this: Find some really crazy opinion which is not held by your
oponent, but which you can say IS held by them or "should be" if they held
consistently to the views you CLAIM they hold. But you are way off base here.
I think you will find that what I ACTUALLY SAY should provide you more than
enough material for criticism--given our very different perspectives!
--Scott Harrison
"A clash of doctrines is not a disaster--it is an opportunity." --Alfred North
Whitehead, "Science and the Modern World" (1929)