From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #19 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 019 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: bull dykes are your friends [The Great Quail ] Re: Right Angles in my house ["The Rooneys" ] REAP ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) ["Redtailed Hawk" ] Hmmmm ["Redtailed Hawk" ] Re: Ok, a half-hearted apology. [gSs ] Re: the angel in the house [Capuchin ] Re: triangle in the house [grutness@surf4nix.com] Re: Right Angles in my house [Capuchin ] Re: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:36:19 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: bull dykes are your friends Drew writes, >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. Oh for heaven's sake. Look, Drew, half my friends these days are queer, ok? If I can joke about a bull dyke from hell with them, I am not worried about you being creeped out because I tripped over your PC meter. I think the "from hell" part in the context of my statement implies the type of radical feminist butch lesbian who hates men. So relax. Respectfully, - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:35:08 -0700 From: "The Rooneys" Subject: Re: Right Angles in my house > > 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. Umm...there is no "need" in my example. You are rewording/avoiding the question. Did fegs _need_ to organize efforts to support solicitation of certain ethnic restaurants after 9/11? No. Was it hatred? No. Was it racist? You tell me. Similarly, if a certain person who thinks of men and women as equals (you could choose for this example a feminist or regular Joe or regular Joe feminist) WANTS to treat women with more respect or courtesy than men, to compensate for pervasive descrimination against women, can you logically draw the conclusion that said person _hates_ women? > Men also constitute the greater percentage of great, positive work. > 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. I think it's significant that your criteria do not consider great works of love, altruism and charity great, positive work. Angel at My Table was a great flick, - - Bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:38:07 -0500 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: REAP Ted Demme, director of films including "Blow," "Beautiful Girls," and "The Ref," of a heart attack, while attending Sundance Festival on Sunday. Ted Demme, the nephew of Jonathon Demme, was only 37. I can't say I loved his films, but 37 -- damn. ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:59:57 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) First, another thought on the Royal Tennenbaums(also I'd better put in a disclaimer here. I just had my first round of allegy shots and am feeling delightfully light-headed. And I don't feel my cognition is at all dimisnished by this nice floaty spaceyness. When I reread this later ... I'll know for sure;-). For now thou, think of me as drunk.) Ah, back to the RT--I woke up in the middle of the night last night with ideas in my head which werent there when I went to sleep. Baisically I realized that the RT holds up as a microcosm as well as a macrocosm. In short, it can be seen as being about one person, the different characters representing different parts within that person. Or it can be seen as it is presented--a tale about a group of people. By looking at it the first way, however, some of the density of detail really made sense. And I've found while many movies make sense as a macrocosm, only the best ones also come alive as a microcosm. S P O I L E r Think of it--Chas the securities dealer, so consious of disaster , vunrability and fire, in his redsuit breeding dalmation mice and finially getting a real dalmation. Isn't he the heart/fear/courage factor in an induvidual? And Eli--why is he so pathetically funny? Because he can be seen as our ridiculous false self, the wannabe hip self who trades in authenticity for fantasies of coolness(which is a drug.) Or the ball playing competitor(who lived in the ballroom) who when he looses his inspiration gives up on a boat to nowhere. Alright, I'll stop now, but I really love how this story is so intricate, how all the pieces fit perfectly. So maybe theres also a megastory here about an induvidual who tried to get rid of their daimon, so to speak, after which things went downhill, who then, thru a series of providential encounters, events and choices, succesfully reintegrated themselves into a more functional self. Now--thats a great, inspiring megastory, just as the regular story is. One many of us, even if we don't live in a castle, can at least try to work towards. But rarely do you see a story and megastory click so neatly together. Thats what amazes me. - ---------------------- Sexism, etc: What Im going to say will probobly alienate -everyone- on this ls(just in different ways.) Therefore--I gotta say it, right;-? We live in fucked-up times. I actually have a whole intricate sociological theory for this, but its original and I have learned abit bout not giving ideas away on the Net, but I'll say this. It takes all the sexual changes within human civilization and shows how its just a bunch of humans trying to do their best in the given circumstances. This last century and a half of accelerating change has thrown us all for a loop. We cope in various dysfunctional ways with this loop. Here's my particular crooked bit. I want contradictry things. I want a guy who'll open doors for me who wouldnt treat me as an object. I want equity more than equality(I hate machines, I like to cook, --for me, that trade-off works. Any fair trade-off works except playing dumb. That one's not fair) and patience more than anything else. I don't want to be rescued but as a human being, I sure need (as do we all) to be rescued from myself. Which is one of the reason why other people are so important. And for many of us, that means especially the other sex. There used to be more rules about how we treated each other. Whether they were right or wrong is not the issue. Now we have to look within. Its tough. We make mistakes. You do when the ground beneath you is not solid. Its like we're all patients in a hospital for the hopeless wondering who has the worse disease. Your boils are uglier than my rash. Well maybe, but really... I'd rather try to find an effacious salve. Oh, and I agree with Drew about "bulldyke from hell" being not a great choice of words. Kay, is this my most rambeling post yet? _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:18:40 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Ok, a half-hearted apology. All right already. Three on-List remarks, and *numerous* off-list remarks. I hereby offer a half-hearted apology for the "bull dyke from hell comment." I was not trying to be offensive to lesbians, nor do I assume that all lesbians hate men, or that all bull dykes hate men. Or, as one off-Lister wrote, that I even used the words "bull dyke" which themselves are offensive when used by a non-lesbian. An apology, because I really didn't want to offend anyone. Half-hearted, because I think the List is occasionally overly sensitive and PC-humorless. - --Quail, who once sat through an entire lecture by Mary Daley. Willingly. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:27:51 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: Hmmmm Cognition does seem to be effected. I think I used megastory for metastory. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:30:44 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: Ok, a half-hearted apology. On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, The Great Quail wrote: > I hereby offer a half-hearted apology for the "bull dyke from hell > comment." I was not trying to be offensive to lesbians, nor do I > assume that all lesbians hate men, or that all bull dykes hate men. > Or, as one off-Lister wrote, that I even used the words "bull dyke" > which themselves are offensive when used by a non-lesbian. And if you had not written this apology we would have continued to negatively classify you as a homophobic, sexist, lesbian hater. Thanks for clearing that up, you chauvinist pig. > An apology, because I really didn't want to offend anyone. > Half-hearted, because I think the List is occasionally overly > sensitive and PC-humorless. At least in some directions. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:47:31 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the angel in the house On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, The Great Quail wrote: > 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 These are all the same "judgment/assumption" reworded. If a person doesn't think of a woman (a PARTICULAR woman) as a regular human being because she is of the class of women and that class is sub- or super-human, then thinking of that woman as a regular human would be, at best, a mistake. It would be wrong. Doing so would be doing wrong and the only assumption I made is that a person "cannot abide"/"HATES" doing wrong or finds it "repugnant". I think that's fair. After all, it's wrongdoing. > 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. Nobody is casually redefining sexism to misogyny. The statement was that the kind of sexism wherein women are treated as non-humans is misogyny. > 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. Wait wait. Would you say that a man who thinks all women should be kept in cages, disallowed the vote or any more social status than a pet animal, and insist their role is one of subservience to men is not a sexist if he LOVES women? He LOVES them like he LOVES dogs or hunting. Is that not misogynist? > 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. I think you're taking "hate" too literally. I would probably argue that a person who treats or thinks of women as non-equals (to themself) is misogynist. Whereas, sexism can exist that does not imply value judgment. > 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? Your point read, to me, that 'to say that he "hates women" probably does more harm than good' because, even if it were true, it's not as productive as pointing out his sexism more gently. Perhaps I was mistaken... but if so, I don't get your 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. Oh, so you think it does more harm than good because it's wrong? Isn't that implied by your previous statement "Neal Stephenson is ... not demonstrably misogynistic"? Why do you have an "and" followed by a restatement of that same point? With the above interpretation, your original statement breaks down to "What you say is false, and being wrong does more harm than good." I think everyone would agree that being wrong does more harm than good. I don't think that's all you were trying to express. > 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. First, now you're generalizing about hackers, and that's totally inappropriate. While it's easy to assume that a predominantly male field will be gender-biased, it's totally inapropriate to say that he's more likely to be accurate with misogynistic (or just sexist) hackers than, say, misogynist bank tellers. Any given person can be a misogynist or a sexist and the fact that he's writing about hackers doesn't make his portrayal of misogynism any more or less accurate. Second, note that ALL of his male characters view or treat women "like that". Last, the same view is expressed by the author in the omniscient narrator role when the viewpoint of the male characters is not the focus. > >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. And you don't think that's somewhat demeaning? And does he not, in the men, glorify independence (as Heinlein does)? And doesn't the implication that women cannot be truly independent place them in a position outside of the possibility of glory? > 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. Uh... I don't think that "balances" anything at all. He shows men to be human beings with flaws and strengths that cover the spectrum and women to be dependents and evil-doers whose strengths never reach into the realm of men. Failing to write of men as wholly honorable, perfect beings does not mitigate his abysmal portrayal of women. > 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. How about admitting that, in Cryptonomicon, there is not a single woman who is not mocked or insulted for being self-directed and independent? > >Consider the vicar's wife at Bletchley who "forgot to keep her eyes closed > >when reaching into the bingo machine". > > 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. Well, first of all, the "wow, I never thought of that" moment was when they first explained that the person creating the one-time pads had to close her eyes. Second, it's not a matter of "political correctness", it's just that there are so few prominent women in the book, it's pretty easy to step through every single one of them and show how their indepdendence and humanity is either non-existent or punished. I mentioned this one snippet because it is indicative of the greater theme of the work and consistent throughout his portrayal of women. > Why must you only see the negative in just about everything? I see the positive, but rarely does it need comment. We don't need to fix the positive things. I mention the negative because it needs to be corrected and the first step is pointing it out. If I completely failed to see the positive in things, I wouldn't have anything of my own, would I? And I would think my activities would also be extremely limited. > 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. I'm not failing to admit anything there. But there WERE men doing that work as well. How about making Avi or Enoch a woman and the vicar's wife a man (and presumably not a vicar's wife)? It's not that there were NO men doing clerical work at Bletchley. And certainly it's not true that there were NO women in the tech start-up land-grab. But Stephenson chose what he chose and that reflects something of himself. (And if he's worried about showing "typical" members of each set, Avi would have been a suitable female role because, at least in my experience, the non- or less-technical business-side folk at tech start-ups were just as likely men as women.) > 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. Yeah, men make mistakes. But do women, in this book, do anything but make mistakes or act subservient to men (or their desire for men) except out of vanity or spite? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:07:09 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: Re: triangle in the house >I was providing an example, not writing a thesis on masculine >lesbians and misanthropy. make that misandry. James (keeping quiet and hoping the subject will go away soon) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:11:57 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Right Angles in my house On Mon, 14 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. > > Umm...there is no "need" in my example. You are rewording/avoiding the > question. Uh... I guess I assumed you do what you need to do and if you treat women with more respect, generally, than men just because they are women, you feel it's something you need to do. And I'll make another attempt to answer your above question (at the top of this message) directly and see if that pleases you. It is quite possibly a hatred of treating women AS PLAIN HUMAN BEINGS that drives one to treat women with more respect than men purely for the sake of their womanhood. I'm quite interested in what possible motivation a person can have to treat women with more respect than men out of hand and what, exactly, that means in real interactions. What does it mean to have an attitude toward a class that does not respect their roles as individuals? Does it mean that the most respected man in your acquaintance receives less respect than the most respected woman? Does it mean that you have to try to treat men on the street poorly so that you can be assured you give more respect to women? How does it work? > Did fegs _need_ to organize efforts to support solicitation of certain > ethnic restaurants after 9/11? > No. Was it hatred? No. Was it racist? You tell me. It was an attempt to counteract the effect perceived (mostly via news media, however reliable that is) that middle-eastern owned businesses were being avoided by large segments of the population. While the choice of which restaurants to patronize involved a determination of the race of the owner, there was no judgment on the part of the fegs organizing the patronage as to what non-physical traits this race of people might have that differ from people of other races. We were told that people were making the racist decision to NOT patronize these establishments out of fear that their money would go toward "terrorist activities". This was racist because it assumed that all people of the arabic persuation were involved in terrorism. (That's a non-ethnic trait ascribed to the whole of an ethnicity. That's racism.) Our action was to go to restaurants owned by middle-eastern people BECAUSE THOSE RESTAURANTS WERE NOT BEING PATRONIZED, not because we ascribed some particular traits to the race of the owner other than his race. Racism requires one to ascribe non-racial characteristics to a race of people as a whole. I don't think we were doing that. But we were reacting to people doing that and attempting to counter-balance the effect of their actions. > Similarly, if a certain person who thinks of men and women as equals > (you could choose for this example a feminist or regular Joe or > regular Joe feminist) WANTS to treat women with more respect or > courtesy than men, to compensate for pervasive descrimination against > women, can you logically draw the conclusion that said person _hates_ > women? First, I didn't say that ALL sexism was misogyny. That's something you and the Quail derived from various misinterpreted comments (and that's the kindest and most generous way I can put it). Second, I ask why a person would choose to treat two equals differently IN GENERAL? (I mean by that, why would you treat two people, say a man and a women, differently given all other equal circumstances like mood, level of familiarity with the man and woman, etc.) > > Men also constitute the greater percentage of great, positive work. > > > 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. > > I think it's significant that your criteria do not consider great > works of love, altruism and charity great, positive work. I put in (and you quoted) "political leaders", "authors", and "peace workers". Certainly many of those people are responsible for great works of love, altruism, and charity. I think folks like Clara Barton, Abbie Hoffman, Mother Theresa and Malcolm X could all be listed in one (or more) of those categories and I suspect those are the kind of people you were considering when you listed "great works of love, altruism and charity". To me, the only category that is a glaring omission is "justice workers" for peole like Clarence Darrow and Oliver Wendell Holmes and Sandra Day O'Connor (though her contribution to "justice" as a whole is questionable, it is still her stated field of endeavor) that don't really fit into the other categories. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:14:24 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Redtailed Hawk wrote: > but its original and I have learned abit bout not giving ideas away on > the Net What the fuck does this mean? Are you saying that personal credit is more important than sharing knowledge and understanding with the world? That seems extremely selfish and anti-social to me. "the Net" is EXACTLY where you should be giving your ideas away. You're certainly getting plenty FROM it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:36:02 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: the angel in the house Jeme, >Nobody is casually redefining sexism to misogyny. >The statement was that the kind of sexism wherein women are treated as >non-humans is misogyny. OK, I am sorry, I may have shot over the point. Though I still disagree, because I am uncomfortable with the whole "non-humans" argument, which has a lot of subjectivity. >Wait wait. Would you say that a man who thinks all women should be kept >in cages, disallowed the vote or any more social status than a pet animal, >and insist their role is one of subservience to men is not a sexist if he >LOVES women? He LOVES them like he LOVES dogs or hunting. Is that not >misogynist? Of course it is; but for deeper and more obvious psychological reasons that, say, what Viv originally contended for Stephenson. >I think you're taking "hate" too literally. Perhaps; I am not sure how else to take it. I was just using the language you supplied. Perhaps "contempt" would be a better choice? >I would probably argue that a person who treats or thinks of women as >non-equals (to themself) is misogynist. And I disagree; but more to my original point, I think the language also disagrees. There is a sen se of vituperation, of venom, of, well, *hatred* implied in the term "misogyny." That digs deeper than just issues of perceived equality. A man may feel women are his "inferior" in numerous ways; but perhaps he feels this is natural, and he feels no real contempt or hatred for women. He may even be very fond of them and truly love them and want to "protect" them and so on. He may even feel they are his superior in certain things like, say, knitting and writing folk songs. I would not call that misogyny, but a serious case of sexism and chauvinism. Though by your argument, his very assumptions about inequality must have a basis in hatred/contempt, whether or not the man consciously feels those emotions. And I cannot agree to make those assumptions. I would rather use the language as given. So I understand your point; I do not subscribe to it. >Your point read, to me, that 'to say that he "hates women" probably does >more harm than good' because, even if it were true, it's not as productive >as pointing out his sexism more gently. Perhaps I was mistaken... but if >so, I don't get your point. No, that is not my point, sorry for not being more clear. Viv called him a misogynist, but then remarked that she defines the term differently than the dictionary. I believe it would be best to call him sexist, which is demonstrable, and works within given terms. It therefore prevents misunderstandings that may occur when people do not realize that Viv is not employing accepted usage, and consequently be more productive. From that point, she is free to launch into an explanation of why she finds dehumanizing sexism to be hatred, and so on -- which is really psychoanalysis. >First, now you're generalizing about hackers, and that's totally >inappropriate. Uh, yeah. Because most hardcore computer geeks I know are certainly not sexist, and have such smooth interpersonal skills with women, which translates into a deep-seated belief in intellectual and social equality. A few notable exceptions like yourself aside, I think that the hardcore computer geek community is largely white and male, and tends to not have a strong pro-feminist orientation. Maybe you and I have had totally different experiences....? I am *not* saying that there are not female geeks, either -- I know a few. >Second, note that ALL of his male characters view or treat women "like >that". I agree, and I mention that I won't defend him totally, because I do think his characterizations are a bit sexist. And Anne Rice's characterizations of men are ludicrous, too. >And you don't think that's somewhat demeaning? Yes, I am not saying it is not. >And doesn't the implication that women cannot be truly independent place >them in a position outside of the possibility of glory I don't know, I think you are being too hard on him. What about the female protagonists of "Snow Crash" and "The Diamond Age?" >Uh... I don't think that "balances" anything at all. He shows men to be >human beings with flaws and strengths that cover the spectrum and women to >be dependents and evil-doers whose strengths never reach into the realm of >men. Again, I think you are being overly critical; but that's your right as a reader. Though I thought you were a big Stephenson fan? Has that changed? >Failing to write of men as wholly honorable, perfect beings does not >mitigate his abysmal portrayal of women. Agreed; but it does show that women are not the *sole* evil-doers or mistake-makers, and I thought you were driving at that last letter. >How about admitting that, in Cryptonomicon, there is not a single woman >who is not mocked or insulted for being self-directed and independent? I agree that the characters of that novel tended to belittle women. >I see the positive, but rarely does it need comment. We don't need to fix >the positive things. I mention the negative because it needs to be >corrected and the first step is pointing it out. Fair enough, though one tends to forget there may be positive things when subjected to a continual litany of negative things. There's a lot in Cryptonomicon that may be praised. That's all. >I'm not failing to admit anything there. But there WERE men doing that >work as well. How about making Avi or Enoch a woman and the vicar's wife >a man (and presumably not a vicar's wife)? It's not that there were NO >men doing clerical work at Bletchley. Fair enough. >And certainly it's not true that >there were NO women in the tech start-up land-grab. But Stephenson chose >what he chose and that reflects something of himself. (And if he's >worried about showing "typical" members of each set, Avi would have been a >suitable female role because, at least in my experience, the non- or >less-technical business-side folk at tech start-ups were just as likely >men as women.) I suppose; but my experience at least in New York shows that the ambitious, business-oriented "Avi characters" are largely male. But by making Avi a woman, it would have screwed up the relationship Stephenson was establishing between Avi and the protagonist what's-his-name. Better to have one of the other techies female, I think, for story purposes. But still, your basic point is valid. >Yeah, men make mistakes. But do women, in this book, do anything but make >mistakes or act subservient to men (or their desire for men) except out >of vanity or spite? I think the boat owner, while too sentimental in the end, is not a bumbling fool, nor too subservient? Though I dislike the "sexist" way in which she was portrayed, where you get her off her boat and suddenly she's this "typical female." I think we both agree that Cryptonomicon is sexist; my original intention was to argue language and misogyny. I think you make some good points about the book, though... - --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #19 *******************************