From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #20 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 020 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Angle at My Table was a great flick ["The Rooneys" ] Re: the angel in the house [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:37:37 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) At 02:14 PM 1/14/2002 -0800, Capuchin wrote: >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. Jeme, Please keep your misanthropic bile to yourself. If you cannot respond with the proper amount of respect and politeness to your fellow human beings on this list, then stop making baseless assertions about the motivations of the rest of the human race. And, most especially, refrain from the sort of ugly aggression and insults that we see here. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:22:00 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > Please keep your misanthropic bile to yourself. What was misanthropic in my post? I interpreted HER statement to be misanthropic. > If you cannot respond with the proper amount of respect and politeness > to your fellow human beings on this list, then stop making baseless > assertions about the motivations of the rest of the human race. I have no respect for misanthropy, anti-social behavior, and the destruction or retardation of human development for selfish ends. I won't show those ideas respect in any forum. > And, most especially, refrain from the sort of ugly aggression and insults > that we see here. I asked what she meant. I asked if she meant what I THOUGHT she meant. I then stated my opinion about what I thought she meant. None of that is insulting. I would also request that if you want to comment on a person's tone or style in a particular message, you do so by addressing the message to that person alone. You began this message with "Jeme," and addressed no other list-member in your post. One must then question why you would send such a post to the list at large. The difference between your post and mine is that yours was an attempted hand-slap for misbehavior and mine was a request for further information so the list as a whole could gain a better understanding of a post to the list. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:32:00 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: not quite paradise/reap yay!!! The sun is shining for the first time this year!!! Last year's total rainfall, 500mm. Total so far this year, 150mm. But hopefully the waters can now start to recede (no floods here, but in other parts of the region there are). if anyone's interested. RIP Stanley Unwin >Angel at My Table was a great flick, Janet Frame apparently lives less than two miles from here, but (not surprisingly) she's pretty reclusive. >I want contradictry things. I want a guy who'll open doors for me who >wouldnt treat me as an object. a couple of years ago I opened a door for a woman who responded with "how dare you open a door for me just because I'm a woman!" I retorted "how dare you presume I wouldn't do this for a man!" James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:49:24 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) At 03:22 PM 1/14/2002 -0800, Capuchin wrote: >On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > Please keep your misanthropic bile to yourself. > >What was misanthropic in my post? Like in so many of your posts, you exhibit an arrogant disrespect and hatred toward your fellow human beings. Wading through the pseudo-progressive muck you've posted today, I fail to see anything worthwhile from you. As always, you seem incapable of refuting an argument except by purposefully misinterpreting the words of the previous author, insulting someone, layering on hyperbole or propaganda, or basically making an infinite amount of unsupported assertions. Unfortunately, since you cannot really back your arguments up, you simply resort to vilifying the opposition. >I interpreted HER statement to be misanthropic. And, as so very often, you misinterpreted it. >I have no respect for misanthropy, anti-social behavior, and the >destruction or retardation of human development for selfish ends. I won't >show those ideas respect in any forum. And I'll refrain from showing you even an ounce of respect if I find your pseudo-progressive rants hate-filled. At least by your ground rules. My interpretation of your posts is that you fail to distinguish between the ideas and the people voicing them. Nor do you show an ounce of concern for the feelings of these individuals. > > And, most especially, refrain from the sort of ugly aggression and insults > > that we see here. > >I asked what she meant. In a pissy fucking way. >I asked if she meant what I THOUGHT she meant. I >then stated my opinion about what I thought she meant. None of that is >insulting. First off, you replied in an overly aggressive, rude, almost violent fashion. Secondly, you simply dismissed her comments "selfish" and "anti-social," fairly insulting terms, without really backing the attacks up. >I would also request that if you want to comment on a person's tone or >style in a particular message, you do so by addressing the message to that >person alone. If I think it concerns the rest of the list, I'll post it where I please. >You began this message with "Jeme," and addressed no other >list-member in your post. One must then question why you would send such >a post to the list at large. Because the list at large is being subjected to behavior which I see as being, well, anti-social. >The difference between your post and mine is that yours was an attempted >hand-slap for misbehavior and mine was a request for further information >so the list as a whole could gain a better understanding of a post to the >list. Did I say my post wasn't a "hand-slap" for your "misbehavior"? Did I suggest that I was requesting further information? Is not anything but a strawman? "What the fuck does this mean?" is hardly the polite way to request information. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:52:22 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Memento (warning: big effin' spoilers) - -- Eb is rumored to have mumbled on Montag, 7. Januar 2002 12:20 Uhr -0800 regarding Re: Memento (warning: big effin' spoilers): > Someone else wrote: >> I love the soundtrack for "Silence Of the Lambs"! I think it's one major >> reason why that movie works so well. That was me. > Always thought that movie was drastically overrated. I couldn't disagree more. To me it's about perfect in every way. It transcends the genre, female role models, whatever, but it *still* is a highly entertaining movie that has thus the potential to be truly subversive by confronting the general populace with alternatives they'd never encounter otherwise. > And lordy, I miss > the screwball fun of Jonathan Demme's early films, now that he has become > A Serious Filmmaker. Ever seen "Citizen's Band" (alternately called > "Handle With Care")? Awww, what a delightful, underrated film. Yes, but it's a long time ago and it was only the German dubbed version on TV... didn't leave much of an impression. Have you seen "Caged Heat"? ;-) > "Married > to the Mob," "Melvin and Howard," "Something Wild"...all great. I've never seen "Melvin and Howard", but I agree about the other two. Not the least because of the Feelies' presence. ;-) > And then > Demme went all sober and PC, and flung himself into that sodden, > Oscar-begging "Philadelphia." And he has never been the same again. Well, I missed "Beloved" but the reviews were pretty bad. WRT Philadelphia I tend to group it with SOLT as the attempt to be subversive by introducing non-mainstream material into the mainstream. Try to change the system from within ... About Ted Demme: I was more impressed with "Blow" than most people, I guess. I thought that he was showing potential, but now we'll never know :-( Greetings, Sebastian - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ Winter is coming. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:11:21 -0600 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) > I asked what she meant. I asked if she meant what I THOUGHT > she meant. I then stated my opinion about what I thought she > meant. None of that is insulting. Hey fegs, let's role-play! Pretend you're standing in front of an actual human who says something that *might* have an implication you find questionable. The speaker's tone is, at worst, neutral, and possibly even lighthearted. You do not want to insult the speaker, you merely want information. So you say "what the fuck does this mean?". And before the speaker has a chance to answer, you offer what you *think* she means. Then you characterize what you think she means this way: "That seems extremely selfish and anti-social to me." You walk away satisfied that you have not insulted anyone. Ooh, freaky! +brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:24:20 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > At 03:22 PM 1/14/2002 -0800, Capuchin wrote: > >What was misanthropic in my post? > > Like in so many of your posts, you exhibit an arrogant disrespect and > hatred toward your fellow human beings. That's not an indisputable fact. I'm wondering what you find misanthropic about a statement of contempt for selfishness. > As always, you seem incapable of refuting an argument except by > purposefully misinterpreting the words of the previous author, > insulting someone, layering on hyperbole or propaganda, or basically > making an infinite amount of unsupported assertions. If you'd like me to forward a post to you and show where I refuted arguments without using any of those techniques, I'd be glad to do so. I'd also be glad to show you that some of the techniques you claimed I use are impossible. > >I interpreted HER statement to be misanthropic. > And, as so very often, you misinterpreted it. That's Kay's call, not yours. And, as an aside, how do you interpret it? > And I'll refrain from showing you even an ounce of respect if I find > your pseudo-progressive rants hate-filled. At least by your ground > rules. I think you find what you're trying to find, whether it's there or not. But I don't need your respect, so I won't protest if you don't provide it. > My interpretation of your posts is that you fail to distinguish > between the ideas and the people voicing them. That's fascinating because I recall at least one person on this list (Mark Gloster) saying he liked me so much because I pretty much never do that. Maybe you two can discuss this and see where the disagreements lie. > Nor do you show an ounce of concern for the feelings of these > individuals. I don't try to second-guess people, that's true. I don't think that's fair, honest, or useful. But if I unintentionally hurt someone's feelings, I always apologize and try to make amends. > >I asked what she meant. > In a pissy fucking way. Hello Pot, I'm Mr. Kettle. > >I asked if she meant what I THOUGHT she meant. I then stated my > >opinion about what I thought she meant. None of that is insulting. > > First off, you replied in an overly aggressive, rude, almost violent > fashion. I don't argue that I was agressive. But I was grossly offended by her statement. I then went on to ask if that's what she truly meant in order to give her the opportunity to rescind or restate. Which is a whole lot more than some who are offended offer before flinging insults. > Secondly, you simply dismissed her comments "selfish" and > "anti-social," fairly insulting terms, without really backing the > attacks up. I didn't dismiss her comments at all. I took them to heart. If I had dismissed them, I couldn't have been offended, could I? Would you have been happier if I'd spent the time "really backing the attacks up"? Or would you have chastised me for ranting on the concept of "intellectual property" versus human growth and development with very little provocation? As far as your predictable reaction, I think it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" proposition. So commence with the damning. I'd be happy to explain in more detail why I think the statement she made was selfish and anti-social. And if she confirms that my interpretation was correct, then I'll do so. > If I think it concerns the rest of the list, I'll post it where I > please. You are free to do so and I didn't mean to imply that you aren't. I just requested it, for the sake of efficacy. > >You began this message with "Jeme," and addressed no other > >list-member in your post. One must then question why you would send such > >a post to the list at large. > > Because the list at large is being subjected to behavior which I see as > being, well, anti-social. And I think your end (ceasing the behaior you don't like) is best served in a personal, rather than public, conversation. I think it's a natural thing to question why a person would air personal dirty laundry in a public forum (like asking why someone would choose to reveal their love affair on Jerry Springer) and the answer or assumed answer to that question would tend to taint the real objective of the airing. I was just trying to be helpful. > >The difference between your post and mine is that yours was an attempted > >hand-slap for misbehavior and mine was a request for further information > >so the list as a whole could gain a better understanding of a post to the > >list. > > Did I say my post wasn't a "hand-slap" for your "misbehavior"? Did I > suggest that I was requesting further information? Is not anything > but a strawman? It's not a strawman of any kind. I was just pointing out that my post, while directly responding to Kay's, did contain generally interesting information while yours was a personal grievance that doesn't benefit anyone but me and you. > "What the fuck does this mean?" is hardly the polite way to request > information. As you well know, polite isn't always the most appropriate tone. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:34:54 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Brian Huddell wrote: > Hey fegs, let's role-play! Pretend you're standing in front of an > actual human who says something that *might* have an implication you > find questionable. The speaker's tone is, at worst, neutral, and > possibly even lighthearted. In other words, you want to compare this email situation to a real-life conversation. That I'll do, but no other presupositions. > You do not want to insult the speaker, you merely want information. Right, like that one. None of those. > So you say "what the fuck does this mean?". Actually, you say "What the fuck does THAT mean?" because you don't get to quote them. If it's something like a press conference and they've moved on, you might say 'What the fuck does THIS mean?" and follow it with an excerpted quote, but that would be awkward. > And before the speaker has a chance to answer, you offer what you > *think* she means. In some situations (like the press conference above or a Q&A session after a lecture) you don't get an opportunity to get the response and then respond again. > Then you characterize what you think she means this way: "That seems > extremely selfish and anti-social to me." Right. You're leading the conversation. You're trying to get a response to your particular concern. There are LOTS of ways to interpet a general question like "What the fuck does that mean?" and you're not really assured to get an answer that addresses the particular question you've got. So you might go ahead and explain your interpretation so that the first speaker has something on which to base their reply. > You walk away satisfied that you have not insulted anyone. No, you don't walk away. You hang out and wait for the reply. But what about the onlookers (or other audience members or other people standing around in this circle that party or whatever). Should an onlooker jump in and attack the questioner without finding out whether or not the speaker was offended or if the speaker really did mean things in the way the questioner interpreted them? Isn't it more appropriate to wait for a response from the questioned before jumping in and making an ass of one's self as the defender of an assumed, but not yet confirmed, honor? The answer is, of course, that it doesn't matter because there is a totally different dynamic and flow in mailing list conversations than spoken conversations. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:34:54 -0600 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) Jeme: > In other words, you want to compare this email situation to a > real-life conversation. That I'll do, but no other presupositions. > > > You do not want to insult the speaker, you merely want information. > > Right, like that one. None of those. In other words, you will not stipulate that you did not want to insult Kay. I believe you. Or is it just that you would not mind insulting her in a "real-life conversation"? Either way, the insult is what raised eyebrows, and it is also what you denied having done: > I asked what she meant. I asked if she meant what I THOUGHT > she meant. I then stated my opinion about what I thought she > meant. None of that is insulting. But since you won't entertain a hypothetical conversation in which one of the goals is to avoid insulting the other person, I guess there's not much left to talk about, because it's kind of the point. +brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:59:13 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Spoiler RT and sex, Sex, SEX(alright-gender) On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Brian Huddell wrote: > > > You do not want to insult the speaker, you merely want information. > > In other words, you will not stipulate that you did not want to insult > Kay. I believe you. Or is it just that you would not mind insulting > her in a "real-life conversation"? I was outraged and offended. Are you going to tell me that concern for the offender's feelings is an overriding consideration to you when you're outraged and offended? In an honest discussion, my priorities in asking for clarification are as follows: 1. Make sure an actual request for clarification is made. (You'd be surprised how often a person merely responds and expects clarification without explicitly asking for it.) 2. Make myself clear. This includes using the most fitting words that come to mind. 3. Ensure that the addressee will interpret the correct non-literal meaning and tone with no personal offense. Well, that last priority is exactly that: A last priority. And personally, I think it's nearly impossible to achieve while maintaining honesty and meeting the other goals. > Either way, the insult is what raised eyebrows, and it is also what > you denied having done: And still deny it. I didn't say anything bad about Kay. I said that what I believed to be one of her views was anti-social and selfish. But I don't consider that an insult to Kay. And really, it's only my and Kay's opinions on that that matter. If Kay was personally insulted, I should hope she'll take it up with me personally and that will be that. > But since you won't entertain a hypothetical conversation in which one > of the goals is to avoid insulting the other person, I guess there's > not much left to talk about, because it's kind of the point. I'd gladly engage in such a hypothetical, but I don't think that hypothetical has much relevance to the other conversation. I mean, you were setting it up as an analogy and then inserted non-analogous conditions. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:08:38 -0500 From: "Fric Chaud" Subject: Re: triangle in the house On 15 Jan 2002, at 11:07, grutness@surf4nix.com wrote: > >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) I've learned you have to give it 4 to 6 days. - -- Fric Chaud ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:34:21 -0700 From: "The Rooneys" Subject: Re: Angle at My Table was a great flick > > > > 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 I'll make another attempt to answer your above question (at the top of > this message) directly and see if that pleases you. It does, thank 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. That is an interesting point. > 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. Thank you for clarifying my argument for 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? > 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). You are correct. I assumed that you were defending Vivien's comments that equated sexism with misogyny. Thanks for your kindness and generosity :), - - Bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:48:16 -0800 From: anansi Subject: r e s p e c t >From: The Great Quail > >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, Your closing is the only respectful part of your response. Mine was chock full of the benefit of the doubt, but you're replying to me as though I'd wrapped a "HOMOPHOBE" bumper sticker around your head. Relax yourself, please. I particularly resent the nonsense about my "PC meter," which I think is in no way warranted by the remarks I actually made. I've noticed you tend to flip out like this a lot less when you think I'm on your side, so for what it's worth, I happen to agree that the word "misogynist" is being stretched well beyond its reasonable limits here, and that to do so trivializes it in much the same way that extending the definition of "rape" to include verbal sexual harrassment would. >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. I really wasn't all that offended, to be honest. Your subsequent posts on the subject just get worse and worse, though. This level of venom is very surprising. >From: Capuchin > >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. Although it's "nice" to see that some sources of venom are still in mass production. >"the Net" is EXACTLY where you should be giving your ideas away. You're >certainly getting plenty FROM it. Not bloody lately, mate. Drew - -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:35:15 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the angel in the house On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, The Great Quail wrote: > OK, I am sorry, I may have shot over the point. Accepted, but I think you should keep an eye on that. No offense intended, but you have a tendency to "overshoot the point" and start arguing against things nobody said. Take that for what it is (a general comment on observed behavior without specific historical reference) and we can leave the point there for now. > Though I still disagree, because I am uncomfortable with the whole > "non-humans" argument, which has a lot of subjectivity. Heaps of subjectivity. I agree with you there. But that's why I included "to theirself" (or whatever qualifier) to mean that their own self should be the standard of humanity. > >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. Wait... so this guy... this guy that LOVES women and wants to keep them in a cage, he's misogynist? How does that jive with the below: > 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. Isn't that exactly what I described above and you agreed was misogyny? > 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 understand that and I think I made the case as best I can at the moment (that is to say, I don't have any new, creative words or descriptions to illustrate exactly how belief of inequality of classes is hatred toward the unequal classes), so we'll have to leave it where it is. > I would rather use the language as given. But you didn't above. You said that this fellow that feels love for women was a misogynist. > So I understand your point; I do not subscribe to it. Well, there was no obligation with the sample issue. You can cancel your subscription at any time. > 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. Dear Lord! "Uh, yeah. Because most irish people I know are certainly capable of holding their liquor, and have no problem drinking socially without getting out of hand, which translates to low instances of surliness, alcoholism, and wife-beating. " "Uh, yeah. Because most blacks I know are certainly capable of holding a job, and aren't drug addicts and lay-abouts, which translates to uplifting members of society who benefit all. " What you're saying is "I believe this stereotype and have no problem reinforcing or even making sarcastic comments about it NOT being true. It's true enough to me." > 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. We do have totally different experiences. And you're using yours to project a stereotype and that's insulting. > >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?" I would say they are like the best female characters in Heinlein. Flawed in their womanhood, but strong DESPITE that. And I think Cryptonomicon is a step backward. We'll see what happens with the next book. > 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? No, I like the ideas he presents and his ability to integrate futuristic technology into futuristic society in a way that shows how society and technology shape each other. But that doesn't mean I can't also think he's a misogynist. Heck, I like you. ;) > >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. I wasn't making such a statement. And you DID say that his portrayal of women was "mitigated" by the way he shows men as also having flaws. Anyway, I'll take the most recent statement to be the true one and move on. > >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. But you won't agree that the narrative belittles women or that it fails utterly to present a female whose character brings to the reader's mind any doubt that the male character's interpretations of her actions are dead on? When I say "mocked or insulted", I mean in the narration, in the way they are described outside the mind of any other character. > 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 didn't dismiss the whole book. I just said Stephenson's showing some misogyny. > >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. Well, that's New York. As I said, my experience here and in the bay area has been otherwise. And that, after all, is where the novel is set. > 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. (Randy.) How's that? What would be "screwed up" if Avi were a woman? Sure, Avi couldn't have the doting Indian wife and half-dozen toddlers, but they weren't really essential anyway. Are you implying that there would have to be some kind of sexual tension between them simply because they're a man and a woman? Yeah, maybe it would have "screwed up" Randy's worldview so that he could view women as equals. > Better to have one of the other techies female, I think, for story > purposes. Maybe one of the friends they go to for help, but none of them have that kind of prominence in the scope of the novel. I still stand by Avi as a great choice for a female character that is central that would not have altered the basic story. (It would have been much harder to explain a female in Enoch Root's position.) > I think the boat owner, while too sentimental in the end, is not a > bumbling fool, nor too subservient? You're talking about Amy. Her father owns the boat. She's the one that chases Randy to the US and rams her car into his because she doesn't think he's putting the moves on her fast enough. She's also the one that Randy basically uses as a dirty sock to relieve is sexual tension in the jungle (and she's pleased with it even though it's basically a single penetration and his ejaculation). Oh, and at the beginning Randy assumes she's gay because she's getting down to business, not making eyes at him, and listens to female singer-songwriters. Anyway, I think we're in a better place than when we began. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #20 *******************************