Joe wrote: >>Neither patriarchy nor patronization were being seriously discussed; I was seriously referring to Mr King's desire to reply on my behalf as patriarchal and patronising and I stand firm by that comment. >>name calling.. (of which we have had much too much lately) was >being once again >indulged in by calling Chris King patriarchal and patronizing. So when is pointing out a patriarchal and patronising action taken by a male on this list redefined to name calling??? Perhaps I should apologise for your male attitude to trying to squash discussion on whether another male on this list is patronising and patriarchal by his actions towards female members on this list. >>People might at least try inquiring of the moderator of this list if she considers her professional colleague in New Zealand to be a sexist. Oh, why bring the moderator into this..is this a veiled threat? Is it Behave and accept the patriarchy or I'll set the moderator upon you for her opinion rules supreme?? >>He is certainly not responsible for the promotion policy at a US catholic university (Boston College, Mary Daly's institution).>> I was pointing out the state of feminism today in male dominated environments where an esteemed feminist is denied advancement to professor. In "male dominated environments", I include the male domination that is occuring on this list which is a feminist list and should be supportive of women's views, whereas we now seem to have a male apologising for women who have stated their own beliefs! This is patriarchy rearing its ugly head. GS >>>RE: >"Reverse sexists play the sex (ist) card, just like reverse racists >playthe race (ist) card. People are known by the hands they play.>Joe E. Dees >Poet, Pagan, Philosopher>--- >Since when is the discussion of patriarchy "reverse sexism"? And if >that's what you think, then why in the world are you on a feminist list- >serve?? I reserve my right to discuss patriarchy in all its >manifestations..if that's a reality that you cannot deal with then I >suggest you find another list more suited to your needs. I for one, >refuse to squelch my discussions of patriarchy despite your accusations of >reverse sexism.>>Jessica> Neither patriarchy nor patronization were being seriously discussed; rather, name-calling (of which we have had much too much lately) was being once again indulged in by calling Chris King patriarchal and patronizing. People might at least try inquiring of the moderator of this list if she considers her professional colleague in New Zealand to be a sexist. He is certainly not responsible for the promotion policy at a US catholic university (Boston College, Mary Daly's institution).>>On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, joe dees wrote:>>> >> >>I encourage any person on ecofem to use our conversations freely >> >without permission.>> > >> >You are giving people permission to reproduce MY conversations without >> >at least notifying me politely that they wish to do so? >> >Does this smack of patriarchy or what? Perhaps MR KING should find a >> >list more suitable for patriarchal males and leave ECo-fem to true >> >feminists of the female gender. Don't we have enough male intervention >> >and domination in everyday life without having the same crap on an >> >ECO-FEM list?>> > >> >>I agree with Kristina and apologise to Teri on Ginger and Jessica's >> >account.>> > >> >MR KING you have no right to apologise on my behalf or on the behalf of >> >anyone else. How disgustingly patriarchal and patronising of a >> >male to be spelling out to females how he determines they should think >> >and act. GET A LIFE!>> >>> >GS>> >> Reverse sexists play the sex (ist) card, just like reverse racists play the race (ist) card. People are known by the hands they play.>> Joe E. Dees >> Poet, Pagan, Philosopher>> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
