Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!usl!jla From: jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: RE:Last Nite ( a LONG) letter to men Message-ID: <569@usl.UUCP> Date: Sun, 23-Jun-85 22:24:30 EDT Article-I.D.: usl.569 Posted: Sun Jun 23 22:24:30 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 03:00:54 EDT Reply-To: jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) Organization: University of (SW) Louisiana Lines: 147 Having been away the past week at the architecture symposium, I can only now address some recent postings concerning one of my articles. I apologize for the delay. As one might imagine, I was surprised by the level of bile in Jeanette Zobjeck's recent posting. But not too surprised, as I have been reading Jeanette's postings for a while now. Although tempted to, I will refrain from speculating on the possible sources of Jeanette's hostilities. After all, as someone pointed out this is net.women, not net.flame, and I was and am endeavoring to examine various issues in a serious light. However, in defense of her rather vicious article Jeanette writes: > In both instances the reply was actually metered to cause the individual > concerned to rethink his position. My feeling is that 1), positive reinforcement is highly preferable to intensely negative strokes, 2) name calling should be saved for net.flame and avoided in serious discussions between supposedly intelligent persons, 3) it is insulting to think that other people (me in this case) must be viciously treated in order for them to consider some issue, and finally 4), if Jeanette's hostility was merely a device, as she says, well, I think it's really a bad idea to lay such an attack on someone unless one really mean it. I think Jeanette's attitude is wrong and preclusive to her espoused cause. > The lighter side of being a woman today is truly wonderful the lighter > side of being alive today is fantastic the lighter side does not extend > to this area because so little has been done to make it any less traumatic. It seems to me that Jeanette is a prime source of trauma in this area. I find many of her articles (although often amusing) quite abrasive. I feel that a softer flavor of writing might me more helpful to her cause, as well as giving up her apparent attitude that most people are below her intellectual level. > OK so here is your biggest gripe and for good reason. My vehemence strikes > a chord deep inside which says OUCH. > The truth is there and you can feel it but you never thought about it that > way before. It seems to me quite condescending to assume that someone would never think of something unless it was pointed out to them. Let me go on to other things. In this article, Jeanette purports to address various questions sent to her by "Charl(es,ie)." I'd like to say that in my opinion she doesn't really answer them and I'm hoping that she might try again and do a more accurate job. I do however, take exception to several of the things she does say. > Perhaps the hardest thing in the world to do on this net or via > a keyboard is to convey the depth of emotion which women must deal with > which has no male analog. This is bullshit of the most sexist nature. I cannot believe that women possess deeper emotions than men. Perhaps the single most annoying part of Jeanette's article is excerpted here: > { > > I imagine I may now seem more unsympathetic than ever, but that's not > { > > so. I sympathize with Ellen's anger and if she were a friend I'd do > { > > my best to comfort her, but I cannot *empathize* with her position as I > { > > do not really understand it. > { > > -- > { > > Joe Arceneaux > { > > > { > > { > No, Joe, you are not unsympathetic - just pathetic. > { > { Oh, come on now! > { > { > > { > If Ellen were your friend I would expect that you would be ready and desirous > { > of much more than comforting here. > { > { What, specifically, do you have in mind? > > Imagine ( and this is deliberately simplified to make typing it less > of a novel sized endeavor). > You, > Take your dog out for it's evening walk. > You are acosted by a stranger who drags you into some nearby bushes > and beats the living tar out of you, kill's your dog and > robs you, takes your identification and leaves you for dead. > > Somehow, > You struggle to the street and a passing police patrol picks you up > and takes you to a hospital. > There you recount what happens to you. > ALL > during your statement the cop remains impassive but when you're done > he leaves you with the distinct impression that in some way you > were robbed and beaten because you "asked for it" and no matter > what you say or do that feeling hangs with you. > To make matters worse your boss and your friends and neighbors > and even total strangers who have read the news in the paper > or seen it on TV or heard it on the radio begin to avoid you or > worse yet they come by to offer their support and help but also > just to see for themselves if just maybe you didnt really have > someting to do with it beyond just being at the wrong place at > the wrong time. Now it seems, from my vantage point, that Jeanette is suggesting that I would rape a friend in Ellen Eade's position. I think this is *MOST* revolting. It is hard for me to imagine that this is just another device to get me to think about the issue. > The bias Joe and other men show is perhaps not the cruel and demeaning > bias which put women, or other minorities, down but rather a type of bias > which ignores the differences which are limiting women and play up the > ones which might tend to cut into men's world. Once again, I recognize that there are differences (such as the potential for rape) which constrain women, but some of these are attitudinal in nature (e.g., the result of societal conditioning) and may be changed by the personal desire to do so. I suggested that in Ellen Eade's case a different attitude on her part would have left her amused rather than angry and frustrated. I maintain that it is better to move in the direction of a situation where both men and women would find Ellen's incident non-threatening, rather than a situation where both men and women end up feeling frustrated and angry. > I consider the day a total waste less I catch hell from someone. I find this a pretty shitty attitude, but what's worse is that Jeanette is apparently willing to assume that everyone else feels that way. This is overlong, so I will terminate after one last observation. In her original response to my last article, Jeanette says: > You Blithering fool. Maybe you just cant think let alone read. I would respond that if she would learn to spell, let alone form decent sentences, that that would facilitate reading her rather obscurant writings. -- Joe Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla