Oh, no! [#2]

[Vaska]

>Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:46:15 -0300
>To: calbert at pop.tiac.net
>From: Vaska <vaska at geocities.com>
>Subject: Re: enough is enough!
>
>Charles, if you'd like a public reply, I think not only this but the last
letter or so we've exchanged on the topic should also be placed in the
public domain.  You have my full permission to do so.
>
>Vaska
>
>At 02:34 PM 7/25/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>
>>> 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.  
>>
>>If "harridan" was part of any such ancient discussion, it seems to 
>>have escaped the notice of many of the true 'scholars' on this list, 
>>so I think there is more to it than any lack of attentiveness.
>> 
>>> >> the testosterone induced cockiness they're often driven to
>>> >
>>> >If generalizing about hormonally induced behaviour is inappropriate 
>>> >for the gander.....
>> 
>>Your justification aside, this remains a crude generalization based 
>>on gender stereotypes. I'm more than prepared to grant you latitude 
>>with respect to its use. But if so, in fairness, you should not apply 
>>a razor's edge to my use of similarly innocuous terms. Establish 
>>whatever rule you want, but lets all live by the same ones.
>>
>>> simply because so many fewer women beat up their
>>> husbands/lovers/partners than the other way 'round.  
>>
>>As hard as this may be to believe, that assertion is false. With a 
>>slight edge to the ladies, this is generally recognized as being a 
>>50-50 proposition. The gist of what you say is true only in the 
>>context of the consequences, something I already made clear.
>>
>>> 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. 
>>
>>1) I believe that you are considerably better read than I am, and 
>>have admitted so publicly. There was NO other motivation in my 
>>raising Rilke's name.
>>2) I did not get "angry" about anything in your 
>>analysis, I simply disagreed. The one word which got me in such 
>>trouble has been extrapolated to suggest an animus against women. I 
>>believe that such reductionism functions as a form of censorship. Why 
>>even consider my point, I'm obviously a knuckledragger? I think this 
>>kind of strategy is beneath members of this august body, and I speak 
>>up in my own defense, not because my reputation with the fair sex is 
>>a stake, but because I do not yield to bullies regardless of their 
>>gender. I fail to understand why anything that is said on this list 
>>must be parsed through the prism of malevolent intent.
>>But that's just me.
>>love,
>>cfa
>>
>>I've opted to take this off-list, in spite of what I believe is my 
>>right of public response. If you wish, you may take anything in this 
>>communication public.
>>
>