From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #18 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, January 14 2002 Volume 11 : Number 018 Today's Subjects: ----------------- right angles in the house ["The Rooneys" ] Re: the angel in the house [Capuchin ] Re: right angles in the house [Capuchin ] She Smiled Sweetly ["Redtailed Hawk" ] Re: right angles in the house [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: right angles in the house [Jeff Dwarf ] re: Imac, Umac, we all Mac? ["matt sewell" ] year 2001 [Ken Ostrander ] Re: the angel in the house ["Redtailed Hawk" ] Re: right angles in the house [Aaron Mandel ] don't talk to me about Gene Hackman ["Natalie Jane" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:39:25 -0700 From: "The Rooneys" Subject: right angles in the house Viv put forth: > But I think that treating women as better than men is > functionally equivalent to hating them, because women, being merely human, > will inevitably fail to live up to the stereotype, thus bringing censure > upon themselves. > > Vivien Oh, dear. Does this mean that those of us who treat Robyn Hitchcock as a better-than-average artist really hate him, since he is only an artist after all? Okay, that's not at all what you are saying.... But if someone thinks of women and men as equals, is it still hatred to treat women with more respect or courtesy than men? And what "evils" do women do that balance the scale for male dominated serial killing, raping/pillaging, and abundant child, physical and sexual abuse? (And please don't say give birth to serial killers, rapists/pillagers and violent abusers). Is it even a remote possibility that both sexes are fallible humans, but men constitute a greater percentage of wrong-doing? - - Bill Only when we start emitting wind in public with equal exuberance will we know progress is being made. - Susan B. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:52:37 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the angel in the house On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, The Great Quail wrote: > But that is not what *hatred* means. You are, in essence, making a > judgment call on the motivations behind a wide field of actions with > little or no data. You should not ascribe hatred equally as the > motivation to one man who sees women as pure Godesses and another who > sees them as irrational beasts good only for sex, cooking, and making > the toilet water magically turn blue every two weeks. I disagree. A person who strips a woman of her humanity cannot abide by women being treated as human (or MERELY human, depending on their view). The idea of a plain human being that is simply female is repugnant to them. They may LOVE their idea of what a woman is, but they HATE the what a woman REALLY is. > A Don Quixote-like knight-in-shining-armour fellow who idealizes women > may indeed be fitting them into his own world-view, and stripping them > *partially* of humanity (in the sense that flaws are part of > humanity), but that may not done out of a hatred-based motive, and > would therefore *not* be hatred, nor would it be a case of misogyny. Hey, a person that just thinks of woman as a recepticle for semen and housecleaning droid might LOVE that concept of women. Hell, they might even think it's the highest calling a person can have (decreasing stress and filth). They might LOVE women in their worldview. Does this make them NOT misogynist? To address, for a moment, what Natalie wrote: Victorians who viewed women as angels were misogynist because they thought treating a woman like a human being was a terrible thing (seeing as how they're supernatural creatures and all). Victorians who viewed women as morally superior human beings were merely sexist (yes, even the women). > Neal Stephenson is demonstrably sexist, but not demonstrably > misogynistic, and to say that he "hates women" probably does more harm > than good. Oh, when DOESN'T it do more harm than good to put negative things bluntly when writing about a living person? I think she's just stating the facts. And to put her point a little more clearly, Stephenson (in Cryptonomicon more than any other work) writes of the work of men in a tone of worship and awe, clearly impressing upon his readers that he believes their actions and thoughts are the most important things in the world. He then shows that women are either servants to men (Amy, Mrs. Waterhouse, the women of Bletchley Park) (and not always terribly competent ones) or manipulative bitches out to cause pain and increase irrationality (Charlene, whose every action seems motivated by mocking Randy publicly; and the german spy). In fact, the ONLY self-determining women in the book are evil or fuck-ups. Consider the vicar's wife at Bletchley who "forgot to keep her eyes closed when reaching into the bingo machine". The woman was a human bingo machine and nothing more. She couldn't open her eyes because her self-determination would lead to creating breakable codes and killing MEN out on the battlefield. I assure you that if a male character had been placed in that role, Stephenson would have him inventing a new way to pick the balls that removed the "reaching in with your eyes closed" part of the process. To sum up, if you hate to see women treated like human beings OR think that women acting like plain human beings are yucky, then you think real-live women are yucky. You might treat women like they're not yucky, but that's because you view them as something other than what they really are: plain old human beings. > The Black may hate whitey, and the woman be a bull dyke from hell; Are you saying that part of the definition of "bull dyke from hell" includes hating men? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:23:04 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: right angles in the house On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, The Rooneys wrote: > But if someone thinks of women and men as equals, is it still hatred > to treat women with more respect or courtesy than men? If you think of men and women as equals, why would you treat women differently than men? Surely if you make a distinction and say that one needs to be treated with more respect or courtesy, you're implying that they are UNequal. But I think she's just saying (and I know I'm CERTAINLY writing) that if someone acts you stated above, they are at least sexist and that's all we can conclude. > And what "evils" do women do that balance the scale for male dominated > serial killing, raping/pillaging, and abundant child, physical and > sexual abuse? I would argue that male domination of serial killing and child abuse stem from society's support of self-actuation in men and not women. It's probably also true that child abuse (both violent and sexual) is nearly as common in women as men. And there's absolutely no doubt that female serial killing is on the rise. > Is it even a remote possibility that both sexes are fallible humans, > but men constitute a greater percentage of wrong-doing? Men also constitute the greater percentage of great, positive work. Make two lists for each category; composers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists, peace workers, political leaders, authors, and inventors, one consisting of men, the other of women. A person is qualified to be named on the list if they are significant in their field and have attained worldwide general recognition and are historically significant. If you have a reasonable general education, you'll find your lists, in agregate, to be largely male. Now, if you cross off those people who did the bulk of their work after 1900, you're left with an even larger male/female ratio. Shall we conclude from this that men are both better and worse than women? And if so, how can we treat them both better and worse than women to pay tribute to this? Mightn't we otherwise conclude (and isn't it more accurate and better justified by the facts to say) that men, for whatever reasons, have traditionally been noted more for their work for good or ill? And we can analyze those reasons and come up with compelling arguments on several sides. One might say that men have had social dominance and, therefore, are more encouraged into action. One might say that men, having social dominance, have written to history to their liking. One might say that women lack the drive to "great" work and are more content in less prominent roles. One might say that women are duller and weaker and therefore it is less likely one will reach a level of notoriety for any work, good or ill. There's a whole spectrum of rationale for this anomaly of history. I personally choose one of the first two, but not because there is a stronger case for them than the others. I choose them because they provide the greatest motivation for encouragement and justice. If later it is shown that the Y chromosome carries some kind of "greatness activator" or there's a recessive double X "genius inhibitor", well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:32:36 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: She Smiled Sweetly I just had a great work-out:-). I saw the Royal Tennanbaums. I feel like I've finially witnessed a perfromance of something like Shakespeare's Romances, the late Tragicomedies which start with things very bad indeed yet through a not utterlly impossible stream of choices, circumstances, pecidellos and intentions, journey to a common redemption where everyone owes everyone else for growth they could never have achieved alone. I loved everything about this movie. The arch narration was perfect for a movie about the Urban Haute Bourgoise who grow up on the New Yorker and even in the middle of crisis have a soi distant voice operating in their heads. I also thought every performance was great--so I guess credit for that goes to the director or casting person? I mean, I didn't know Ben Siller could act. And I think someone on list dissed Paltrow but I loved her performance but - -- of course she talks in a monotone -- she's dead. But the montotone slowly developes into a voice, by the end, in the graveyard, her eyes really move, and I adored her deadpan, underground humor in the scene where she breaks up with Eli. Thats not just pretty girl stuff. I hope she gets another oscar nod. Also hope Hudson does. Am pretty sure Hackman and Wilson will I found myself laughing really hard at parts(Margo to Eli "Why are we stopping here? And his dumb velvet slippers with that silly jacket), crying at parts and always interested. The beauty--well, I wouldn't even go there, or the fact that every detail was nailed, or the music. The music! I have to dust off and play my old copy of "Chelsea Girls." However, there is one glaring, terrible problem I must point out. Even thou I think this is now one of my favorite movies ever. On -my- worn out copy of "Between the Buttons" "Ruby Tuesday" does -not- come after "She Smile Sweetly." And -that- is the only negative comment I can possibly come up with. I LOVED THIS MOVIE. I DIDNT KNOW A MOVIE COULD BE SO PERFECT. Kay, aka Mordacai _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:43:35 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: right angles in the house On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, The Rooneys wrote: > And what "evils" do women do that balance the scale for male dominated > serial killing, raping/pillaging, and abundant child, physical and sexual > abuse? (And please don't say give birth to serial killers, > rapists/pillagers and violent abusers). Is it even a remote possibility that > both sexes are fallible humans, but men constitute a greater percentage of > wrong-doing? "Men" do not perform such acts. Individual men do. Likewise, "women" also do not do anything to "balance the scale," for the same reason. The point was, as I recall, that to make blanket generalizations about a person or persons because of their gender was misogynist or sexist. That would include assuming that men are worse than women because more men than women are serial killers etc. No one seems to have disagreed with that point - we were arguing about which term better described it. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::can you write underwater on liquid paper?:: __Zippy__ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:26:51 -0800 From: anansi Subject: bull dykes are your friends From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey [In this view,] > Black man in America cannot be racist, and a woman cannot be sexist. > The Black may hate whitey, and the woman be a bull dyke from hell; > but they lack the power structures to support their prejudices and > make them into an "-ism." And while the black man and "bull dyke from hell" you describe I had a post on this subject I deleted because I really did not want to perpetuate this discussion. But I do feel compelled to point out something I'm sure you and Vivian already know, which is that being a "bull dyke from hell" is not synonymous with hating men. I'm a little creeped out by the choice of words. Drew - -- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:29:39 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: right angles in the house Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > "Men" do not perform such acts. Individual men do. Likewise, "women" > also do not do anything to "balance the scale," for the same reason. > > The point was, as I recall, that to make blanket generalizations > about a person or persons because of their gender was misogynist or > sexist. i mention this ONLY because this discussion is about words, etc, but someone who hatred of men is misandry; misogyny only applies to hating women. though it can probably be agreed that those who practice either can be aptly described as assholes. > That would include assuming that men are worse than women because > more men than women are serial killers etc. > > No one seems to have disagreed with that point - we were arguing > about which term better described it. ===== "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy . Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:26:22 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: re: Imac, Umac, we all Mac? Godwin's Law, shurely..? Matt >From: "Fric Chaud" > >I think Hitler would not have liked me either. >-- >Fric Chaud - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:27:41 -0500 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: year 2001 sorry so late. i've been out of the country since jesus day. - -albums: michael franti & spearhead stay human bob dylan love & theft strokes is this it? coup party music bjork vespertine manic street preachers know your enemy frank black & the catholics dog in the sand doves lost souls david byrne look into the eyeball stephen malkmus & the jicks white stripes white blood cells nick cave & the bad seeds no more shall we part garbage beautiful garbage new order get ready daft punk discovery reagan babies growing up the american way le tigre feminist sweepstakes pulp we love life avalanches since i left you spoon girls can tell clinic internal wrangler seafood when do we start fighting? beulah the coast is never clear gorillaz fugazi the argument mull historical society loss radiohead amnesia pete yorn musicforthemorningafter ani difranco revelling/reckoning g. love & special sauce electric mile ben folds rockin' the suburbs manu chau proxima estacion esperanza elliot sharp blues for next guided by voices isolation drills joe henry scar r.e.m. reveal kristin hersh sunny border blue si se paul mccartney driving rain mick jagger goddess in the doorway foetus flow suran song in stag cowboys & indians moldy peaches over the rhine music for radio low things we lost in the fire living end roll on ambush at junction rock saint etienne interlude rufus wainwright poses sigur ros agaetis byrjun caetano veloso noites do norte air 10.000 hz legend beta band hot shots II chocolate genius godmusic coldplay parachutes dismemberment plan change - -shows: david byrne/si se avalon david byrne/joe henry paradise bob dylan fleet center soft boys/fresh young fellows paradise bebel gilberto paradise frank black/house of large sizes paradise patti smith paradise pj harvey orpheum midnight oil avalon radiohead/beta band suffolk downs u2/pj harvey fleet center mekons middle east doves/webb brothers axis air/sebastian tellier avalon guided by voices/spoon paradise g. love & special sauce avalon psychedelic furs/tinfed avalon king crimson/john paul jones orpheum unband middle east billy idol avalon suran song in stag o'brian's rufus wainwright/tegan&sara paradise matt chase group/oxycontinentals/anchormen o'brian's cibo matto/freeze pop somerville theatre tanya donelly kendall cafe waterboys/black rebel motorcycle club avalon melon farmers/allstonians common ground - -movies: amores perros amelie l.i.e. waking life mulholland drive lord of the rings: the fellowship of the ring the exorcist memento sexy beast ghost world heist shrek in the bedroom royal tenenbaums the pledge house of mirth ocean's eleven the score spy game joyride novocaine tailor of panama the man who wasn't there things i missed out on: nuggets II, moulan rouge, the others, harry potter, ludwig things i wish i missed out on: lara croft: tomb raider, the fast & the furious (both were movie features my flights to and from korea, respectively) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:30:33 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: Re: the angel in the house Just want to say that I've found this whole disccusssion interesting, both for its regular content but also for the way its brought in ideas of words and language. I think the thing is--what Viv's done is to combine two antithetical methods-- the poet's perogative(to invigorate and make language grow,) with the laywers perogative (that of logic and strict definitions.) Its unusual but also intriguing. Once she gets her degree and hits the courts, could yield some interesting future results. Kay _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:31:25 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: right angles in the house On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, The Rooneys wrote: > But if someone thinks of women and men as equals, is it still hatred > to treat women with more respect or courtesy than men? Well, it's obnoxious, because that "courtesy" often ends up being unwanted, AND it encourages guys to be crude in male-only environments (where they're relieved at not "having to worry" about their words falling on women's delicate ears). Then women try to join those environments and everyone freaks out. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:39:47 -0800 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: don't talk to me about Gene Hackman I guess I should put spoiler space here... not sure if there's any spoilers here though... So I saw "The Royal Tenenbaums" the other night, and my first thought as the credits began to roll was, "Why can't ALL movies be like this?" It was that rarity of rarities - a movie that set out to be heartwarming and actually *was* heartwarming, in its own weird way. Although they seemed a bit silly and overly quirky, I really cared about the characters and what happened to them. The quirkiness never seemed over-the-top or out of control (as is often the case with the Coen Bros.); it always seemed to be there for a reason. For instance, I initially thought it silly that the Tenenbaum offspring looked and dressed exactly the way they did when they were kids, but of course this showed how they were all stuck in their own prodigious pasts. The acting was uniformly excellent - even the vacuous Gwyneth Paltrow played her sullen role to a T. The Wilson brothers are very talented (and easy on the eyes). Their mom must be very proud of them. I loved the attention to detail - e.g. the way Luke Wilson decorated his tent, with all his model cars and tennis trophies. And it was really, really funny. For some reason, the bits that cracked me up the most were when Gene Hackman and the kids were stealing milk, and when Owen Wilson said, "Where's my other shoe??" I did have a problem with the film, though. The use of music to underscore almost every emotional moment kind of annoyed me. The music itself was great, of course, but it seemed like the director was unwilling to just let the script and the actors speak for themselves. This was also reflected in the scene Jeme pointed out, where the narrator comes in and *tells* us how Gene Hackman is feeling, when Hackman's expression really says it all. It's like the director is insecure about his own abilities and uses music (and the narrator) to prop himself up. I guess I can't argue too much with a soundtrack that includes a Nick Drake song and that great Van Morrison song at the end, but it still bugged me. Anyway, I may well see this movie again - and it's very rare for me to see a first-run movie twice. This past year, only "Ghost World" and "Lord of the Rings" have received such an honor. If I made top 10 lists, "The Royal Tenenbaums" would definitely be towards the top. If not *at* the top. n. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:31:20 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: the angel in the house Cappy writes, >I disagree. A person who strips a woman of her humanity cannot abide by >women being treated as human Judgment/Assumption #1; also uses weighted words like "strips" and "cannot abide." >(or MERELY human, depending on their >view). The idea of a plain human being that is simply female is repugnant >to them. Judgment/Assumption #2 >They may LOVE their idea of what a woman is, but they HATE the >what a woman REALLY is. Judgment/Assumption #3 All I am saying is that in order to casually redefine "sexism" to "misogyny," you are forced to make a chain of assumptions and judgments, wherein you claim to know the real motivation behind something, and ascribe hatred as the cause. >Hey, a person that just thinks of woman as a recepticle for semen and >housecleaning droid might LOVE that concept of women. Whether or not someone loves their own perception is not the issue. Misogyny implies hatred of women in general, not hatred of a particular type of woman who may or may not conform to one's worldview. I suppose I am uncomfortable with the way you and Viv seem to be playing around with language to make a psychological point that may or may not be valid. Me: >> Neal Stephenson is demonstrably sexist, but not demonstrably >> misogynistic, and to say that he "hates women" probably does more harm >> than good. Cappy: >Oh, when DOESN'T it do more harm than good to put negative things bluntly >when writing about a living person? What does that have to do with my point? It does more harm than good to abuse/misuse language, especially when you are being perjorative, *especially* when making a rather serious accusation about a living person. It is not being blunt, it is being biased at the very least, most realistically unfair, and engaging in character assassination at the extreme. >I think she's just stating the facts. No, she's not. By calling Stephenson a misogynist, she is stating her opinion. Even calling Stephenson "sexist" would be an opinion, although one easier to support with a reasoned argument that conforms to a recognized definition of the term. >And to put her point a little more clearly, Stephenson (in Cryptonomicon >more than any other work) writes of the work of men in a tone of worship >and awe, clearly impressing upon his readers that he believes their >actions and thoughts are the most important things in the world. He then >shows that women are either servants to men (Amy, Mrs. Waterhouse, the >women of Bletchley Park) He has some of his male characters view women like that; and considering his male characters are largely military types from the middle of the century, or computer hackers, one could make a case that his portrayal is accurate. That does not get him off the hook as an author, however, because he did not see to it to add stronger female characters. So I am not defending him against charges of sexism, but against the way you state your own case of misogyny. >(and not always terribly competent ones) or >manipulative bitches out to cause pain and increase irrationality >(Charlene, whose every action seems motivated by mocking Randy >publicly; and the german spy). In fact, the ONLY self-determining women >in the book are evil or fuck-ups. I can't say I agree to that; and though Stephenson's female characters may suffer from being written by a male and therefore reflecting male fears/ideation/fantasies and so on; he does include strong female characters in his other novels. Though like Heinlein, no matter how strong, they always seem to "need" a male. Though I think this is also balanced by Stephenson's tendency to show men as being manipulative and evil and power-hungry; he does offer a critique of certain male behaviors. He may be a bit sexist, but in my book, his only real fault is not being better at female characterization. To say that he "hates women" is quite a stretch in my book. >Consider the vicar's wife at Bletchley who "forgot to keep her eyes closed >when reaching into the bingo machine". The woman was a human bingo >machine and nothing more. >She couldn't open her eyes because her >self-determination would lead to creating breakable codes and killing MEN >out on the battlefield. I assure you that if a male character had been >placed in that role, Stephenson would have him inventing a new way to pick >the balls that removed the "reaching in with your eyes closed" part of the >process. Oh for heaven's sake. Your political correctness is stifling, and sucks the life out of what should be a "wow, I never thought of that" moment. Why must you only see the negative in just about everything? The fact is, whether or not you would like to admit it, it was generally women who did this work, and MEN who were actually on the battlefield. And although you "assure" me that Stephenson would have had a man break the code, all that is is your opinion -- and one that ignores the fact that even a male genius later in the book screws up, based on his fondness for primes. >Are you saying that part of the definition of "bull dyke from >hell" includes hating men? Uh.... I think that's a reasonable implication, and one made in humor; a humor that most lesbians, gays and queers would appreciate. I was providing an example, not writing a thesis on masculine lesbians and misanthropy. - --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #18 *******************************