Oh, no! [#1]

[Vaska]

RE: [FWD] RE: enough is enough! from Charles -- keep reading this in
sequence, foax.  Might make things a little clearer.  Might even throw some
light on my reluctance to address the *content* of my infamous post of
yesterday -- on which no one, as Harrison observed, had so much as word to
say.  Happy reading, all -- and if I sound cynical, believe me: this time I am.

>Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:06:11 -0300
>To: <calbert at pop.tiac.net>
>From: Vaska <vaska at geocities.com>
>Subject: Re: enough is enough!
>
>>Now, now. Absent a comprehensive list of such offensive terms, men 
>>might heretofore be left only with the terms woman, womyn, sister and 
>>mother. And truth be told, I've only known one other person who used 
>>the term "harridan", so I doubt it is recognized as part of any 
>>misogynists lexicon. But as I am soon turning 40, I guess I'll become 
>>a little smarter any day now. 
>
>Look, my only half-reasonable guess is that 20 years ago you had other fish
to fry and did not notice when all sorts of terms came up for analysis,
overdue.  
>
>>> the testosterone induced cockiness they're often driven to
>>
>>If generalizing about hormonally induced behaviour is inappropriate 
>>for the gander.....
>
>Oh, come off it, Charles: wasn't it one of you guys who used this little
chestnut just a few days ago?  No comments, then, eh?
>
>>That is also not to suggest  that  women may not feel
>>intimidated, but as others have pointed out, EVERYONE seems to have 
>>had to overcome insecurity to post. 
>
>I agree: one of my posts on this very topic was in response to Harrison's
on-list acknowledgement of just how muzzled he'd felt the moment we began
talking about introducing a list-moderator.
>
>>>and that a very large number of them exploit *that* physical
>>> difference in ways appalling to behold.  Let alone experience.  
>>
>>It is an 
>>activity for which I have zero tolerance, but it doesn't stop me from 
>>recognizing that it is driven by power dynamics, NOT gender, as you 
>>graciously admit. 
>
>Admitted nothing of the sort -- I asserted it loud and clear.  As for as
domestic violence is concerned, gender considerations obviously do come into
play simply because so many fewer women beat up their
husbands/lovers/partners than the other way 'round.  
>
>>You will notice that I do not take issue with your interpretation of 
>>other artists(like Rilke, another R that I haven't read) only with 
>>the premises underlying your interpretation of the text we are all 
>>sharing. 
>
>Look, it just so happens that I read those Rilke Elegies because Pynchon
had referred to them in _GR_: when a familiar image came up in _M&D_, I took
out both Rilke and my copy of _GR_ just to see if there was perhaps a
continuing allusion to this poet in the new novel.  Clearly, there is.  And
you got angry at that.  Well, go get angry with Pynchon -- I had nothing to
do with it, except notice the continuity, so characteristic of Pynchon's
manner in other works as well.  What does the Rilkean Angel allusion mean in
_M&D_?  As I said in that post: I haven't a clue at this point.  
>
>Vaska
>
>