From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #249 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Tuesday, August 26 2003 Volume 03 : Number 249 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] 3 new books [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] [chakram-refugees] 3 Xena books ["Cheryl Ande" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:35:55 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article In a message dated 8/25/2003 6:23:58 PM Central Daylight Time, cande@sunlink.net writes: > The real shame has always been that the show never got the > respect it deserved from the industry. It was always visually interesting > and technically superior to many of the prime time shows. > Got that right. "Debt" alone made other stuff look pitiful, as did most of "Sin Trade." Reminds me of "Coffee Talk 2" when LL&ROC discussed "Path to Vengeance," which ROC directed. Lucy says she thought ROC made her get out of the Amazon outfit so soon because it showed too much skin (as if). ROC says she wanted Xena in the tunnel highlighted against the background in her "signature" battle dress. Not sure if ROC would've been so aware of composition like that, if she hadn't been exposed to that kind of thinking on XWP. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:35:54 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/25/2003 6:54:59 PM Central Daylight Time, sgitzou@periaktoi.gr writes: > "We forget that Greek plays, Shakespeare's plays, etc. were like the > "soaps" > >of their day, in terms of presenting fare to "entertain" as well as > explore > >subjects of interest to the particular audience." > > Sorry for interupting but did you say that Greek plays or Shakespare were > soaps to their days or I understood wrong again? > LOL! Yes, we were referring to "soap operas" -- the daytime TV shows that don't get a lot of respect. Soap companies provided much of the advertising on them when they began. I sometimes think they imagined housewives watching "fluff" while doing their chores Heh. I meant that what is "classic" today was once the entertainment of yesteryear, with some of the same controversies and "crazy" stuff we laugh at (or consider "taboo") in our own times. Also, speaking for myself (and I think cr and others), no one is ever "interrupting" by joining in the discussion. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:08:39 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Tuesday 26 August 2003 11:54, sgitzou@periaktoi.gr wrote: > "Greek tragedy"???? Now that's a big word. Let's just try to be more > careful! > Sophia Well, I was changing the traditional meaning slightly, the way I used it (referring to the 'Rift episodes in Season 3). But I think it could reasonably be applied to those episodes, I certainly wasn't being disrespectful to classical Greek tragedy (at least, I don't think I was). Apologies if I was. Kitchen-sink domestic dramas, OTOH, I couldn't care less about. I consider them the exact opposite of great tragedy. (Just by the way, when answering a long post on the list, it's considered good practice to 'snip' all the irrelevant bits, just to save people reading through tons of old stuff just to get to the right place. As I have done below. (Though I frequently forget and get told off by the listmistress for it :) (snip) > > > > Now you tell me by what Procrustean exercise a mythical saga set in > > ancient > > Greece, where Gabby's devil-spawn daughter kills Xena's son, Gabby kills > > her > > daughter, and Xena (urged on by the God of War) attempts to throw Gabby > > off a > > cliff in revenge - can be shoe-horned into the category of 'domestic > > violence' and I'll stop watching XWP because I obviously haven't been > > watching a Greek tragedy, I've been watching a kitchen-sink soapie all > > along and never realised it. > > cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:51:15 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article On Tuesday 26 August 2003 16:35, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/25/2003 6:23:58 PM Central Daylight Time, > > cande@sunlink.net writes: > > The real shame has always been that the show never got the > > respect it deserved from the industry. It was always visually > > interesting and technically superior to many of the prime time shows. > > Got that right. "Debt" alone made other stuff look pitiful, as did most of > "Sin Trade." Reminds me of "Coffee Talk 2" when LL&ROC discussed "Path to > Vengeance," which ROC directed. Lucy says she thought ROC made her get out > of the Amazon outfit so soon because it showed too much skin (as if). Whatever the reason, that is *definitely* a huge black mark against ROC!! cr ... who thinks Amazon gear is cool, and LL is cool, and LL in Amazon gear is.. ooooooooooo :) ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:55:52 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle On Monday 25 August 2003 16:01, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/24/2003 5:25:39 PM Central Daylight Time, > > cande@sunlink.net writes: > > Gabrielle's journey is as complex as Xena's. She goes from idealist to > > pragmatist to cynic and then rediscovers her humanity. She is on a > > hero's journey. She emerges from her journey scared and damaged but > > still committed to the greater good. She now knows that to know what the > > greater good is the real challenge. > (snip) > > I think Gabrielle represented an "innocent" and different counterpoint to > Xena, which many Xena fans often found annoying and hard-core Gabfans > wished had been preserved more. It seems they felt her "core" character > deserved to be highlighted more, but was sacrificed for all sorts of > reasons that had little to do with respecting that core. But of the Xena > fans who tolerate Gabrielle, most seem not to have a problem with her > becoming more like Xena (big surprise). I think we Xena fans tend to > consider ourselves more as "realists" and don't find it plausible that > someone could travel with the WP and not lose at least some of her > innocence. (rest snipped - solely for bandwidth) Not a bad analysis. Both of you. cr (listmistress please excuse the one-liner - this once ;) ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:52:43 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Tuesday 26 August 2003 09:24, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/25/03 7:12:13 AM Central Daylight Time, > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > << > -- Ife (imagining cr gnashing his teeth) > > That's interesting. How *does* one gnash? I've always wondered. ;) > > > Very carefully, especially if they've gotten a bit "long in the tooth." > Bwhahahaha! > > Ife (who also must be careful gnashing and grinding) Hmmm. I'm coming over all buddhist - "What is the sound of one tooth gnashing?" cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:02:22 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] 3 new books In a message dated 8/25/03 10:36:38 PM Central Daylight Time, abqbeach@xenawp.org writes: << Would anyone be interested if I posted scans of these articles for download and discussion? I have not yet read them. >> Absolutely! - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:02:17 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article In a message dated 8/26/03 4:50:25 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: << Lucy says she thought ROC made her get out > of the Amazon outfit so soon because it showed too much skin (as if). Whatever the reason, that is *definitely* a huge black mark against ROC!! cr ... who thinks Amazon gear is cool, and LL is cool, and LL in Amazon gear is.. ooooooooooo :) >> Ahem. Since you happened to leave off the part about ROC doing it for production reasons, I thought I'd mention it again. Having said that, it is too bad LL was in the costume for two minutes (if that long). What's funny is that it's the one time she's complained, though jokingly, about not being able to wear a scanty outfit longer. I wouldn't be surprised if it's an outfit she actually didn't mind that much. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:02:21 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/26/03 4:49:35 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: Ife wrote: << > What's the subtext got to do with it? I don't see how you can get more > "domestic" than living together -- eating, sleeping, dividing up chores, > enjoying leisure time, etc. -- as X&G did, regardless of where they did it > or their relationship. Their "home" happened to be wherever they were. > Did you mentally put walls between them? See them as two individuals who > accidentally ended up in the same place most days, usually talking to each > other? Is it because they didn't have a house? What would you call that > aspect of their lives? Camping? Whatever their presumed life, it bore absolutely no discernible resemblance to modern domestic existence. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And to sieze on one (presumed) facet of their relationship to the exclusion of all the other totally different circumstances and slap a label on it just beggars belief. >> I'm not understanding your response at all. First, what I described above was not "presumed." We saw it from beginning to end. A modern version of that is the show "Friends," where unrelated people shared lives and space that they considered "home." Single people also have domestic lives. We see Xena cooking something in a pot when Gabs finds her at the end of SOP, so presumably Xena performed certain domestic chores even when she was alone. After that, we mostly see her doing such things with Gabs. Second, since when have we started dismissing anything in the Xenaverse simply because it didn't resemble what many of us with TV's might be used to seeing today? X&G lived a fairly nomadic existence, which still exists in some parts of the world, including among some modern military personnel and their families. I don't know what "home" means to you (as opposed to "house" or "apartment"), but it means to me what I saw X&G making with each other wherever they were, underscored by referring to each other as "family." Third, who "slapped" domesticity on their relationship or lives to the exclusion of, say, their "work" (which they also happened to do together a lot)? I sure didn't. I simply said I saw a domestic aspect to their lives, just as I imagine (though I could be wrong) that you have a domestic aspect to yours. I didn't say that their travels or battles or discussions, etc. were domestic. I'm saying that at some point they settled down to eat, sleep, relax, talk about their day. I'm saying they had a certain routine, during which each also had her separate tasks and interests, just like other people who share their lives for a period of time. > The Gabdrag didn't bother me personally. To this day, I thrill to that > music and Xena's riding double on horseback, galloping with that mannequin > in tow. Still, I can well understand those who thought it was way over the > top. Oh, quite. But 'domestic violence'? That is bizarre.>> More bizarre than considering a mass murderer to be a hero? > We did indeed see Xena brutally attack the person she lived with, > which in some viewers' minds destroyed the feeling of "safety" with the one > person you trust above all others. They couldn't accept that, anymore than > you accept that Xena would "blubber" in "Doctor." Doesn't matter that > it's supposed to be "fantasy." We respond and make our assessments based > on our on "real" experiences and beliefs. Ah. Our real experience of roaming round the countryside fighting warlords and chatting to gods. That explains it. ;)>> I'm assuming you're being facetious. If not, what do you base your responses on? <> Hmmm, maybe that explains your dismissal of X&G's acitivities that might be considered "domestic"? If so, at least I can understand that. << Well, 'David and Goliath' (and a number of other such legends) are noteworthy by being the exception. I would much prefer, personally, that smartness could overcome brute strength, but *on average*, most of the time, strength and size have the advantage. As Peter Cook (?) said in 'Yellowbeard', a rotten big 'un will always beat a rotten little 'un. >> Or, maybe some people (not you) focus only on situations where that's more likely to be the case? > < men.>> > > In sports where physical strength give a decided advantage, which men like > to emphasize. And aren't you busy furiously stereotyping 'men' right there? ;)>> Yes. I suppose it's because strength is almost always the reason men give for why a woman can't "be as good as a man," and then proceed to give only examples where that might be the case. Oh, and "hormones." That's the other reason. :-) < There are other fields, such as motor racing or car rallying, where strength is not very important (though stamina and quick reflexes are), where I would have thought women should be able to compete on equal terms. Yet there are very few women racing / rally drivers. I don't know why this is. I think possibly women for some reason just aren't so interested in 'machinery'. Women do seem to be more interested in people, and men in 'things'. (As a sweeping generalisation).>> I'd be more inclined to cite expectations, support and role models. I don't think it's an accident that many women (and men) who excel in nontraditional areas come from families where that's the case. They often receive training early on and come to know a lot of the people who teach, judge and provide opportunities or sponsorship in that field. It's a "normal" choice for them, as opposed to a choice that their parents and others may fight them on or try to steer them away from. > I don't think you do consciously or intentionally, anymore than I do. But > you tend to emphasize typically "masculine" advantages (strength) or traits > (anger) when saying what's "better." Tere you are repeating it!!! "Typically masculine... anger" !! I *never* said anger was 'better'. I just said that it wasn't what I call to mind when somebody says 'emotional'. >> Then I misunderstood you in a previous post. Maybe you said "less weak." > I tend to look for creativity, quick > thinking, using the opponents' strengths against him -- which is what I > love about Xena more than her superhuman physical feats. Yes, I'm sure you > like those qualities too. The difference is that you see Xena as an > exception in the "real" world. I do not, because I'm aware of both the > tradition of women warriors and focus on warrior characteristics I've seen > women demonstrate on a variety of "battlefields." With respect, I think your 'battlefields' may be very different from a real battlefield - which I have never seen and hope never to. > Situations where someone is trying to harm you, physically or otherwise. "Real" to me means you could be killed, whether it's alone or with 100 other people, in your own home or a dark alley, as a combatant or someone caught in the middle. << I have no idea how I'd react with people actually trying to kill me, and I suspect those women you've observed might react in quite unexpected ways too. >> I do, though that doesn't mean I'd react the same way each time. And, yes, many women go against all the odds or "conventional wisdom" and fight back or use something else from the arsenal of responses they've developed because they can't always count on physical means. Particularly when their children are involved, they may summon "superhuman" strength, if that's what it takes. (I'm not talking about when the attacker has a weapon that can be used from a distance, in which case it may not matter how strong you are anyway.) <> I was referring to "common" to the two of us, which is more important to my understanding you. The "common to everybody" is a starting point and fine as long as we understand it the same way. I see what we're doing now as exchanging our "personal dictionaries/codebooks," as opposed to arguing the validity of my third edition American Heritage Dictionary vs. whatever dictionary you use. <> I'm not "hinting" at all. I've said I believe words have different meanings for different people. I'm not interested in "manipulating" anything. I'm not interested in getting you to redefine your code book. I "heard" something in what you said that maybe you didn't mean. I was trying to say why I heard it that way according to my "personal code book" and how it is "commonly" accepted in *my* world. Hopefully we'll each walk away with a better idea of why/how our code books differ. > The smarter ones are able to quickly > incorporate new information and creatively respond to new situations, when > "orders" no longer make sense. I think this is why some of the best > leaders refrain from "second guessing those in the field." From second guessing the *leaders* in the field. >> No, from second guessing those in the field. It could be a supply person who suddenly realizes equipment isn't as it should be and has to make a split-second decision about whether to use it anyway or waste precious minutes finding an alternative or Jerry-rigging ("8-wiring" in Kiwi parlance?) it. > "Listening" has > become a very underrated tool. Doing' it when doesn't matter may not nearly > as critical as listening when there's new information that could get you > killed if you ignore it. When animals sense danger, the forest becomes > quiet. Maybe the biggest is roaring, but the others are listening as an > important part of their survival. But what do they know, eh? > > -- Ife I just don't think that's relevant to warfare. Hunting, maybe. >> I was talking about being the hunted, though the hunter might want to listen as well. Maybe we have different concepts of what "warfare" involves? - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:22:51 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] 3 Xena books As far as I'm concern you can send them on line. Sounds interesting. CherylA ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:27:52 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Tuesday 26 August 2003 09:24, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > > Speaking in the abstract now (and not referring to your posts at all) > > > - I do always object to what I consider to be attempts to judge the > > > show in the > > > light of current (frequently American :) social movements, whether > > > that's feminism, political correctness, or what-have-you.>> > > > > Methinks that may be as much in your mind, as I'm seldom aware of that. > > I think I could point you to a few Letters to the Editor on Whoosh that > are coming from just such single-interest perspectives. :( >> > > Grrrr. I thought you were talking about discussions on the list. See, > that's what drives me nuts about referring to folks who aren't here (except > for KT, who's always in spirit and presumably will crop up periodically). Well, no, I did say 'speaking in the abstract', I thought it was evident that I wasn't just referring to this list. Or at least it was evident to me. ;) In fact, this list is probably the best and most restrained** Xena list. It has a merciful absence of the loonies and axe-grinders and band-wagon-jumpers that crop up elsewhere. (** Sorry, I _still_ say 'restrained' is a virtue :) > << Not all from women either. By way of example I can call to mind one > Andjam > (not an American btw), who had diagnosed that Joxer had Asperger's > Syndrome, and every time Jox fell flat on his face or did something else > klutzy, TPTB were deliberately cripple-bashing. Nobody could ever > convince him that Jox came straight out of the Three Stooges. >> > > I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's tied to some "social movement." > What's so unusual about people noting something of personal interest to > them -- like jokes about age or baldness? Sure, maybe some see deliberate > "bashing" and maybe even conspiracies, but humor is very culturally > sensitive and personal. Heh, as far as I'm concerned, anything based on the > Three Stooges is suspect (Lucy's fondness for them notwithstanding). Umm, 'social movement' was not a very good description - I was trying to come up with the right words to describe what I was getting at. Let's say, 'the tendency for some people to view everything in the light of their pet obsession'. Political correctness. Disease of the week. Conspiracy theories. Land rights for gay whales. Whatever. I have my own pet 'worthy causes', but I do try not to apply them completely out of context to a TV show. Some people, it seems to me, are just looking to take offence and will interpret anything in the worst possible light just to give them an excuse. > < therefore it's American social institutions that get reflected in their > posts. >> > > Yes, I imagine that can get irksome sometimes, especially if we assume > everybody knows what we're talking about -- or should care. But that's our > frame of reference. Do you find that to be a problem sometimes on this > list? No, not on this list, that I can recall. On other lists, occasionally. I'm not suggesting that American - umm, trends, are worse than anyone else's, just that they're the ones most commonly noticed. Just by virtue of numbers. > < is British influenced, I think they would claim it as their own indigenous > character. >> > > Better take that up with Lucy and some of the other Kiwis I've heard talk > about some of the differences between them and 'Mericans, especially when > it comes to humor, degree of expressiveness and comfort with "celebrity" > status. Yes, there are definite differences between Kiwi and American. But there are also diffs, almost as pronounced, between Kiwi and British. To give an example (and I'll find one you may be familiar with - just by chance it's in an American movie) - in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Butch blows a safe in a railroad car and overdoes it, there are bits of wood and banknotes floating through the air, and Sundance says "Reckon you used enough dynamite there Butch?" Now that could pass for a Kiwi line. I don't think it would really pass for a typically British line. It's always dangerous, though, trying to pronounce on 'typical' national characteristic humour. > << Now you tell me by what Procrustean exercise a mythical saga set in > ancient > Greece, where Gabby's devil-spawn daughter kills Xena's son, Gabby kills > her daughter, and Xena (urged on by the God of War) attempts to throw Gabby > off a > cliff in revenge - can be shoe-horned into the category of 'domestic > violence' and I'll stop watching XWP because I obviously haven't been > watching a Greek tragedy, I've been watching a kitchen-sink soapie all > along and never realised it. > > We forget that Greek plays, Shakespeare's plays, etc. were like the "soaps" > of their day, in terms of presenting fare to "entertain" as well as explore > subjects of interest to the particular audience. I'm not sure what the > medium has to do with the fact that some people are going to react more > strongly to particular themes or images no matter how "sophisticated" the > presentation. I'm sure there are many who do see XWP as a step below the > "soaps" of our day, which doesn't lessen my own appreciation of XWP's > achievements or its appeal to me. Well, I was using 'Greek tragedy' as a term of praise, and 'soap' as almost the most derogatory term in my lexicon, just above 'sitcom' and 'reality show'. ;) > <<(That is, even assuming I found Xena and Gabs remotely 'domestic', which > I don't and wouldn't even if I was a subtexter which as you know I'm not. > > :)>> > > What's the subtext got to do with it? I don't see how you can get more > "domestic" than living together -- eating, sleeping, dividing up chores, > enjoying leisure time, etc. -- as X&G did, regardless of where they did it > or their relationship. Their "home" happened to be wherever they were. > Did you mentally put walls between them? See them as two individuals who > accidentally ended up in the same place most days, usually talking to each > other? Is it because they didn't have a house? What would you call that > aspect of their lives? Camping? Whatever their presumed life, it bore absolutely no discernible resemblance to modern domestic existence. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And to sieze on one (presumed) facet of their relationship to the exclusion of all the other totally different circumstances and slap a label on it just beggars belief. > The Gabdrag didn't bother me personally. To this day, I thrill to that > music and Xena's riding double on horseback, galloping with that mannequin > in tow. Still, I can well understand those who thought it was way over the > top. Oh, quite. But 'domestic violence'? That is bizarre. > We did indeed see Xena brutally attack the person she lived with, > which in some viewers' minds destroyed the feeling of "safety" with the one > person you trust above all others. They couldn't accept that, anymore than > you accept that Xena would "blubber" in "Doctor." Doesn't matter that > it's supposed to be "fantasy." We respond and make our assessments based > on our on "real" experiences and beliefs. Ah. Our real experience of roaming round the countryside fighting warlords and chatting to gods. That explains it. ;) You see, that is what I object to. It's *fantasy*. I can't see the point of dragging it down to the level of my banal life, but I guess that would hurt nobody but me. What I consider to be mischievous and malicious, is savagely attacking the producers *based on my own idiosyncratic point of view*. And people have done it repeatedly. A pox on them. > > As an > > American woman, I only wish it represented some kind of "social > > movement" that could sweep away all the barriers in our police force, > > the armed services, the judicial system (a huge number of women are in > > jail for killing/wounding abusive partners), and religious/secular > > marriage "canon" that still favors women putting up with such crap. > > Umm, yup. Only wish what did?>> > > Discussions about domestic violence. Oh. Right. Yep. > << Yes, well, I agree, there are 'typical' differences that apply *on > average*. > On average, say, men tend to be stronger and hence more likely to do the > fighting - which is why a 'woman warrior' is unusual. >> > > Women warriors are not that unusual in some countries/cultures. If brute > force were the only criterion, some of the greatest warriors in the world > wouldn't be smaller people who developed the "martial arts." Normally, we > talk about courage, skill, quickness, endurance, mental sharpness, etc. > when cataloging what makes an effective warrior, yet somehow physical > strength becomes the primary characteristic that lessens the probability of > female combatants. Suddenly the "David and Goliath" scenario becomes > irrelevant. Well, 'David and Goliath' (and a number of other such legends) are noteworthy by being the exception. I would much prefer, personally, that smartness could overcome brute strength, but *on average*, most of the time, strength and size have the advantage. As Peter Cook (?) said in 'Yellowbeard', a rotten big 'un will always beat a rotten little 'un. > < men.>> > > In sports where physical strength give a decided advantage, which men like > to emphasize. And aren't you busy furiously stereotyping 'men' right there? ;) > But when you get to archery or target shooting, women often > excel. I suspect that they could do so in swimming, running and other > sports as well, if they devoted as much time and energy to it as their male > counterparts. I'd have to disagree there, if only on the grounds that I'm sure women runners train just as hard as their male counterparts. Yet they're still fractionally slower. There are other fields, such as motor racing or car rallying, where strength is not very important (though stamina and quick reflexes are), where I would have thought women should be able to compete on equal terms. Yet there are very few women racing / rally drivers. I don't know why this is. I think possibly women for some reason just aren't so interested in 'machinery'. Women do seem to be more interested in people, and men in 'things'. (As a sweeping generalisation). > My point is that any number of characteristics go into > champions and that it's dismissive of those characteristics to emphasize > only one of them. I don't hear people saying that the only reason a man > excelled is his strength. Usually, they write about his "heart," with > particular fondess for the contestant who didn't seem to have the physical > requirements to succeed. Yes, we may be fond of them, but that's precisely because we realise they're beating the odds. If smaller people usually had the advantage in most things, I have no doubt we'd be very fond of the occasional big guy who could overcome the disadvantage of his size and win against the odds. > << Which is why I fizzed a bit when you thought I was assuming 'anger' was > a male characteristic and 'emotionalism' a female one, because I don't. >> > > I don't think you do consciously or intentionally, anymore than I do. But > you tend to emphasize typically "masculine" advantages (strength) or traits > (anger) when saying what's "better." Tere you are repeating it!!! "Typically masculine... anger" !! I *never* said anger was 'better'. I just said that it wasn't what I call to mind when somebody says 'emotional'. > I tend to look for creativity, quick > thinking, using the opponents' strengths against him -- which is what I > love about Xena more than her superhuman physical feats. Yes, I'm sure you > like those qualities too. The difference is that you see Xena as an > exception in the "real" world. I do not, because I'm aware of both the > tradition of women warriors and focus on warrior characteristics I've seen > women demonstrate on a variety of "battlefields." With respect, I think your 'battlefields' may be very different from a real battlefield - which I have never seen and hope never to. I have no idea how I'd react with people actually trying to kill me, and I suspect those women you've observed might react in quite unexpected ways too. > << Nevertheless, without commonly accepted meanings of words, how can > anybody > understand anybody else? >> > > "Commonly accepted meanings" often become ends in themselves, rather than > means to understanding someone else. I can accept that your definition of > something may be based on your reading of a dictionary or how it's used > among people you're aware of. That's a start. It helps me know where > you're coming from. Then I tell you what my reading and experience say. We > can end it there or keep arguing over whose meaning is more commonly > accepted. If we're truly trying to understand each other, we'll move away > from "common" to what's true for us personally. Now here I disagree. Unless you and I are using the same common meanings for words, how can you understand a word I'm saying? (Note that I used 'common' in two senses there - one, 'common' to the two of us; and two, 'common' meaning 'having one meaning understood by everybody' - because otherwise, without having exchanged our personal dictionaries/codebooks beforehand, how would you know what I mean by any of the words in that sentence?) I'm not even getting into 'non-sexist language' and other attempts to manipulate the Anglish language, which you seem to be hinting at, but frankly I don't want to go there at this time. ;) > During our discussion of "reality," I let go (albeit reluctantly) of what > it meant to me, and you did the same, so we could understand why the heck > we saw it so differently. We both still have our priority personal views > of what reality "means." I certainly understand better why you see things > as you do, even though the commonly accepted view on the list might be that > we're both nuts for obsessing about such things. > > << Well, obviously you and I disagree on the question of emotion. I > like 'understated'. Or 'subtle'. >> > > Whereas I might interpret that as "repressed" or "not honest" -- holding > back something. > > << I certainly don't see anger as connoting strength, though. >> > > No, but I think you see it as connoting more strength than, say, crying > (that is, beyond a single tear escaping down an otherwise impassive face). > > > << Hmmm, I'd say that warfare is not a democratic process, and therefore, > when > in battle, you do need to have somebody in command who knows what they're > doing. (And I say this as someone who would make an absolutely terrible > soldier, since I always dispute and disagree with 'orders'. ;) > > When not in battle, then there is room for listening to all points of view > and being multi-dimensional. >> > > There have always been smaller, less well equipped forces which have > succeeded by breaking into smaller units, nearly any one of whose members > could act alone or lead others. Yes. Geurilla warfare. *But* in any one group, there must be one leader, whether appointed or elected or just tacitly accepted, to make the decisions. Otherwise there's just confusion, which is frequently fatal. > The smarter ones are able to quickly > incorporate new information and creatively respond to new situations, when > "orders" no longer make sense. I think this is why some of the best > leaders refrain from "second guessing those in the field." >From second guessing the *leaders* in the field. I'm not arguing this from political conviction, since I'm by nature and individualist and usually suspect 'leaders' - but from a purely pragmatic viewpoint. > "Listening" has > become a very underrated tool. Doing' it when doesn't matter may not nearly > as critical as listening when there's new information that could get you > killed if you ignore it. When animals sense danger, the forest becomes > quiet. Maybe the biggest is roaring, but the others are listening as an > important part of their survival. But what do they know, eh? > > -- Ife I just don't think that's relevant to warfare. Hunting, maybe. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #249 **************************************