--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Next time you're having sex, try to get over the stereotyping ;)
>
No, that would be silly.
Just as silly as bringing sexual models into "intellectual"
discussions -- and casting, at least implicitly -- some posts as
needing to conform to some feminem and masculine standard.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 9:00 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: "Defender of the faith" as addiction
>
>
> > llundrub,
> >
> > I know you mean well, and are expressing some gentle wit.
> >
> > However, as discussed here some time ago, the romantic analogy is one
> > calling up silly sexual stereotypes. And it applies such stereotyping
> > when there is no basis for doing so. It presumes, perhaps subtly, that
> > Judy's posts should conform to some femminine standard and Turqs to a
> > male one. And that the sourse of conflict between them is sexual and
> > not intellectual*. That of course is crap. There is no gender
> > qualities or standards applicable to two posters having intellectual*
> > debate.
> >
> > Falsely putting the debate in gender and sexual terms, adds fuel for
> > further false stereotyping. If a false man/woman bickering model is
> > established, its one or two steps closer for some ("great minds") to
> > fall into traps of making quite irrelevant, inappropriate, having zeo
> > fit, unproductive comments or views along sexist lines. For example,
> >
> > "Judy's not a acting like a woman". Why should any poster have to
> > conform to some outdated stereotypes that have no relevance to issues
> > of the mind and intellect*? Such false standards would be
> > discrimative, placing phantom boundaries on judy's conduct not applied
> > to Barry.
> >
> > Or far more crudely, but unbelieveably, some chucklheads here have
> > actually said such things: "Judy just needs to get laid". i guess
> > thats their solution to all problems involving women. A stellar and
> > sterling vision of what women are (soley) good for, and what their
> > "problem" is. Other comments referring to Judy's problems as "woman
> > problems" -- put much more crudely and graphically. Such caveman
> > absurdities and implied, if not explicit, insults have no place in
> > civil discussion
> >
> > By perpertuating the quite false myth, no matter how wittily and well
> > intentioned, that gender has ANYTHING to do with a posters views,
> > style or demanor, only tends to feed those few men in the crowd who
> > have the intellectual and emotional depth, and shallow insights of a
> > Beavis and Butthead, and who when "fueled", make crass, rude, crude,
> > sexist, inappropriate comments such as cited above.
> >
> > ----
> > *Perhaps "intellectual" is too grand a term for what appears to be
> > mudfights in the school yard. But I use the term to differentiate it
> > from sexual tension.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <llundrub@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Barry Wright, Master of Projection
> >>
> >> ----such hate=such love. soul mates brought together through the
> > aethers.
> >> can't live without each other. such a pure love was never seen on
earth
> >> before. pure ideation without physicality. i'm sort of jealous of
> > you two.
> >> i mean no remarks either of you make ever go uncommented. no
> > lonliness. this
> >> is ipso facto a sort of vicarious love affair with great passion.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Or go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!'
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
