I haven't been following this completely, but the rancor disturbs me. I
would suggest that the conversation be between the people below, not the
list as a whole. I value dialogue, disagreement, and exchange, but
flaming....
Arlene Plevin
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, j griffith wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
