dear randi,
(Randi Zimmerman (CAS) wrote:
>
> I too became tired of reading the recent inflamatory conversations on this
> list. Over the weekend, however, I started to think about a few things.
....
I am trying to really look at the
> source of my uncomfortability. Are the comments justified? If so, how
> has my prejudices been internalized? How do I outwardly express my
> prejudices? Where do I need to change?
>
> I still don't think that a conversation which is obviously dominated by
> two or even three people, should take up the time and space of the group.
> Especially when so much cross referencing is taking place. But we can not
> dismiss the issues, just because we don't like the presentation. We
> should not forget that language is one of the great oppressors.
>
> So go ahead and bring on the "you get more with honey than vinegar"
> comments. I still think that we have to stop trying to bring radicals
> into the "cult of true womanhood." Otherwise, we will never see change.)
thank you! for your insight. and also the reference to the bibliography
you posted a while back! (womyn philosophers website)
i am becoming curious about what is possible for group process on net.
can we amplify and empower each other's processes?
how do we begin to appreciate cultural variables as the given of our
context and explore new frames of meaning? or stories, as some might
say... our diverse voices as an ecological event capable of focusing
attention to the regional and specific, and the possiblilty of global
recognitions...
are there cross cultural values worth exploring in this type of
space...what brings us here... a list of dreams and anguish...
who speaks for women not yet given access... what voice for the
environment, (research?)
other lives? or other species as refugees from corporate violence?
are there even recognitions capable of emerging from the cacaphony of
interference patterns like the aliveness of chaos? (and might some
editorial tensions follow old lines of academic inclusion/ exclusion...)
i became surprised and then ashamed, as if i had written out of turn.
and uncertain, perhaps i did...
one reply catpaulted me into activity here. a memory evoked by a
question, triggered a series of events in my community: seeded that.
(some little systems will have means to cooperate now...)
what brings us into the net? are you doing research? is it
communication with peers? i was looking for narratives because i was
making art that needed roots to draw participants into real (each
other's) story. maybe this won't make sense to you.
i value your ability to question your reactions... i am not sure i
understand everyone's tolerances or esthetic yet. this is still a new
medium for me.
apologies,
mary beth
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 5 08:21:24 1996
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:21:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Arlene Plevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Change and Uncomfortability
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961104124434.21747A-100000@brill>
Randi:
Thanks for your thoughtful message. I appreciate your perspective and the
detail in which you communicated it suggested a concern for not only
getting across your philosophy but in having others think about what
shaped you and why you'd arrived at that point. Interestingly, I believe
it's a great argument for an opposite point of view! You see, you
broached a potentially "uncomfortable" position by respecting the other's
views and just setting up why you disagreed. To me, the details were
convincing on many levels, yet, ultimately while I still believe it's
possible to disagree strongly, affect change, but not alienate with, oh,
say, name-calling or anger (i.e. not necessarily honey but definitely not
bludgeoning), I find a reasoned argument that respects the other can be
more convincing and have a better chance of thoughtful, longterm change.
Sincerely,
Arlene Plevin
