At 11:09 AM 8/24/96 +0800, Kylie Matthews wrote:
>You misunderstood my point. You called yourself other by calling feminists
>them. this is why you don't belong because you yourself say you don't
and you misunderstand my answer. i told you - i was referring to authors
with certain beliefs.
>belong. but I suppose you will willfully misunderstand me again as I have
>found so many men to do. perhaps you could look at your own attitudes to
>women and see if there isn't just a bit of patronisation there. do you
i wasn't being patronizing, i was being condescending. your original
accusation answered itself - you accused me of calling feminists the
'other' and then reaffirmed that construction. i said, 'no...i was
referring to a few anti-development or de-development authors.' and then
you repeat yourself - i heard you the first time. no. you're incorrect.
i was referring to a select group of authors...'
>truely believe that men and women are equal? dont answer me here just
>think about it.
what? i have a point to make and you run to the shelter of 'you're a man'
to escape an argument? give me a break.
>You are the one that has indicated yourself as other to feminists.
no. i called a few authors 'they' shit. can't i use any pronouns?
>Again I am not excluding you. you did this yourself in your original post.
>Your insult to me 'typed without thinking' is a typical male response to a
>female where the male believes himself to be superior. i am not asking you
no. i am insulting you. you're right. but its not 'my MALE response to a
FEMALE. i think you called me a jack ass, and i'm telling you that you
misread my original post. i'm insulting you because
>to justify your existance on this list. i am suggesting that you question
>your own values and behaviour. that is all.
ok. i will.
> however, if you want that justification, here it is. i'm
>>on this list to do three things: observe, learn and contribute.
>
>Learn? well if this is so then i suggest you read and think about what
>others are writing. or can you only learn from males?
what the hell are you talking about? i listen very carefully on this list.
i pointed out a bad remark made by a random listgoer. and you pick me out
as some patriarchal bastard. no. i think you should be able to tell me
exactly what i do that justifies you saying 'can you only learn from
males?' i may have said a few sarcastic remarks and you're calling me a
sexist. that's a big charge. i want to know if you can justify it or if
you're just using it to escape from my point.
>Precisely! you do not understand simple feminist teachings about the need
>for a place of our own. you do not understand why an oppressed group needs
>a place to discuss and to be without those oppressors there. Note: i am
>not calling you an oppressor - you asked the question. if you belong to a
why the hell can't i listen?
>uni which has a women's room perhaps you could ask them why you can't join.
>if you have not done so already. this just shows the inadequacy of your
>thought and research in this area.
i'm glad you think that i use innadequate thought and research. fuck off.
dont you see what this boils down to? you are different jason, so you need
to leave US alone and go participate in a DIFFERENT unit. your rhetoric
falls into the trap of your advocacy above. sorry.
>If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem - white man.
what in the hell gives you the right to blame me out of the middle of
nowhere because i am a white man? if i didn't have a name or a signature
you couldn't tell what i was. you CLAIM that you can tell of my
'patriarchal thought..etc.' but you dont explain why. it amazes me that
you can write such catch phrases as the above. think for yourself.
>no harm???? except of course the silencing of women who are afraid to speak
>out in front of non- feminist non-understanding men. men who in every
>breath they take are oppressing women.
what? silencing women? bull-shit! i told someone that their 'rejection'
of women in development litarature was premature and that they should
INCLUDE before automatically REJECTING schools of thought. you transform
that into 'silencing women who are afraid to speak.' its called a slippery
slope. look into it.
>no. read what i said. i said we are not the same and cannot be the same.
>you are the one who is saying we should be the same. again exposing your
>ignorance.
you know. i just thought that you and i might not be seeing eye to eye on
this issue. my claim is that after you said i created the 'other' out of
feminism by typing 'they' instead of 'a select group of feminist authors.
i replied by saying that i first, did not because i was simply referring to
a few authors. you return and call me a patriarchal jack ass. why?
>again you attempt to discedit me, by saying your lack of understanding is
>caused by -my- not explaining it to you at a level you can understand. I
>am not responsible for your education or your learning ability. i would
who the hell are you? do you think they teach us how to understand people
who write in fragmented sentences? please enlighten me to your brilliant
sense of the written word, in which you write paragraphs that make no
sense. you have automatically turned my comments into sexism. its quite a
defense i see, however it makes no sense. there is no standard by which
you can prove that i was being sexist, so why is it that you can ignore the
substantive level of my comments and say that i am sexist? please tell me.
you simply turn your reply into an ad homenim. it is not an argument.
>happily explain things at your level if you requested this politely instead
>of demanding it. History lesson: men have since adam first blamed eve for
>his action in taking the apple blamed women for their actions thoughts
>reactions ect. men blame women when they rape them; bash them, leave them
>to starve, don't support their own children, can't cope, and of course
>can't understand.
so if you are ever blamed, even if you are to blame, it is not based on
your guilt but on your sex. spare me. you turn feminism into an
infeasible 'rejection syndrome' similar to the comment originally made
that prompted me to post.
>>[Kylie defines differnet feminist movements - yeehaw!]
>
>another patronising jab?
yeah, i guess you could say that, but you have to realize that i am writing
that as a reaction to your condesencion. you originally defined schools of
thought for me as if i was a beginner or as if i knew nothing of the
concept of feminism or womens studies. i simply react - and put your
original comments in perspective.
>Jason, i don't expect you'll reply to this and i also don't expect you'll
>really think about what i've said. i think you'll continue to think of
>yourself very highly and to patronise women. ive heard quite often from
>men - oh no i'm a feminist - i like women. liking women is not enough to
yes. i learned taht you are hiding behind a veil of 'he's sexist' to
ignore the points i was making. i apologize if you didn't understand my
original intent. you've effectively called me an oppressing patriarch in
front of 200 people. i dont take to kindly to that. i was making a point
and you stumbled in and called me the other and told me to leave. i take
that personally.
>be a feminist. i reiterate - feminism is about equality and about the
>discourse about how to achieve this equality that has started over a
>hundred years ago. in order to learn about something like this one has
>first to be humble. i don't think you jason have ever been humble.
you've misconstrued my point, told me to leave the forum, called me a
patriarchal jerk, and pointed out that you think i know nothing and that
i'm an arrogant bastard. i'm intrigued by the lack of thought or credit
given to my original point. you are as bad as the original writer in
quickly attempting to silence my discourse. i react.
jason
-------
Luke: I'm not afraid.
Yoda: You will be....you...will...be.
siu debate.
