even though the woman whom i was responding to had taken it >upon herself to define feminisms for me. Jason I did this for you, out of the goodness of my heart, as you showed yourself to be ignorant of basic feminism thought. I will not do this for you again as you have proved another one of my comments to be accurate: that you will not learn. When i make a comment, i am >condescending. When my respondent attempts to educate me regarding what >feminism "IS" and suggests that if i am not part of 'feminism' that i do >not belong on the listserv, she is just happily commenting. Again you do not read properly. I said you should read and learn, not leave the list. >If i were to call someone a racist, i would justify that claim. Its >implications are harsh and to some a degradation far worse than others. In >a similar sense, being called a sexist, an oppressor, or a 'typical male' I didn't directly call you this. I implyed it using your own rope supplied by your own words. if my rhetoric is sexist, i beg you to tell >me. Oh what garbage. You have just finished saying how you do not want this pointed out to you. etymological discourse on the >other hand does not oppress, just some offensive 'foul' language is >rejected by an academic heirarchy does not mean that it is violent or >oppressive. And now you are defending yourself for your use of foul language which was aimed at me no doubt with the intention of silencing me. Just as I am sure other women have become silenced by it. It is aggressive and unecessary. >As for my rhetoric, i dislike instances where language usually considered >unacceptable by a certain heirarchy of thought or discourse is rejected as >'violent' without proper explanation of why this is. i realize that the >last time i made this challenge, to justify one's assertion - i was treated >like a child, told that maybe my educational background was lacking, but i >never did get an answer. maybe one of you can explain this. assuming a >violent tone or slant to my writing is just that, an assumption. however, >i was likened to "men [who] blame women when they rape them; bash them, >leave them to starve." I use no rhetoric so violent. The truth, I see is so much more violent that your abusive language? Am I so violent when I explain to you that women are blamed for their own rape. Do you perhaps agree - like a judge said of one women - 'she's like a car left with the doors open and the key in the ignition, she asked for it'. And this because she was a prostitute. Where do you stand on this Jason? Won't effect you anyway. Just remember that. >i do however ask for a reciprocal apology. You have got to be kidding! You want me to apologise for giving you free education. my point to be made is >worthless because of the way i present it. Just remember who said it. rejected just as quick as the >foundations of scientific thought and rationality by many feminists. What is it you are trying to say here Jason. Surely you are not exposing yet another of your ignorances about feminist teaching by showing you lack understanding about why some feminists reject 'scientific thought' and 'rationality'. Surely not. Kylie. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
