Rebecca,
No it was not my intention to mystify 'something other than'; i tried
to be specific--as had Trevor as I read him--I referred to argument by
evasion. That is no puzzle. Alison's distress is another matter, and it is
not for me to comment on the relation of the email exchanges to what is
private to Alison and David--except to say that
her distress was in part the making public of that which is private.
Wystan
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca Seiferle [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, 13 April 2003 4:50 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gender and the List(s)
Wystan,
I agree with your remarks here entirely. I think a discussion which began as
a carefully impersonal, if passionately argued, reading of a poem, a poem
which furthermore intersected with issues of gender, female experience,
childbirth, etc., became a vehicle for another issue.
I also particularly like your question:"Does it become men to decide what is
WHOLLY inimicable to ANY sort of female perspective?" in response to
Robin's comment. For the answer is, I think anyway, No, it does not. One of
the continuing issues in these several episodes where a discussion of gender
related issues in connection with the reading of a particular poem has
become personalized has been the idea that women should be able to be heard,
to define themselves in their own terms, to say what is or is not inimicable
to them, what is or is not their perspective.
'I do know that there was at least one female member of that list, a
(former?) member of poetryetc who'd, like me, drifted over to see what all'I
do know that there was at least one female member of that list, a
(former?) member of poetryetc who'd, like me, drifted over to see what all
the fuss was about. But she never once posted. And it wasn't because she
was a wilting violet, far from it.'
I can't help but wonder who this is? and wondering why Robin is using an
example of someone, a woman, who may well recognize herself being used in
his example, being used to make his point, being used in his terms. He
presumes to speak for her. How does he know why she never posted? and he
seems to say he doesn't but that he can presume to say, to speak of and for
her experience.
Perhaps she'll read this and say, no, that's not why I never posted, I
didn't have time, I had two jobs and was writing a book, or I never posted
because nothing was ever interesting enough to prompt a reply. So this
example in its specifics, as well as the generalisation it is meant to
serve, does do the very violence it seeks to criticize.
<<
Further, I'd like to second Trevor Joyce's insistence that something other
than/as well as 'sexism'--and I make no presumptions about the personal
relations of anyone on this list--is at issue, indeed maybe at the heart
of>>
I agree with this too and with Trevor's earlier comments today. But I don't
think it is so mysterious as 'something other'.
Alison said quite plainly, I think as plainly as it can be said, that she
feels that she has been distressed by David Bircumshaw, that it is personal,
and that it is almost harassment and furthermore she described it as his
having a "stalker's mind." So what's the puzzle? I know what's she's talking
about, but then a female member of my family has been stalked, once in a
violent and physical manner, and then again in linguistic and literary way
by an English major. Why do we have to say well it's "some other issue?"
we've been told plainly. Isn't that a sort of evasion too, that
unwillingness to accept that it is just as she says it is?
Best,
Rebecca
Rebecca Seiferle
www.thedrunkenboat.com
-------Original Message-------
From: "Wystan Curnow (FOA ENG)" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 04/12/03 11:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gender and the List(s)
>
> Robin Hamilton wrote,
regarding the subsub list that it's character had to
'with the echt-American nature of the list -- to
venture a wild generalisation, Americans tend to be more linguistically
violent than the British. And the wholly-male nature of the list.'
and added:
'I do know that there was at least one female member of that list, a
(former?) member of poetryetc who'd, like me, drifted over to see what all
the fuss was about. But she never once posted. And it wasn't because she
was a wilting violet, far from it. Simply that the nature of that
particular list was WHOLLY inimicable to ANY sort of female perspective.'
I wonder if that last generalisation is not itself a violence, of the
kind
Robin ascribes to Americans. Does it become men to decide what is
WHOLLY inimicable to ANY sort of female perspective?
Further, I'd like to second Trevor Joyce's insistence that something other
than/as well as 'sexism'--and I make no presumptions about the personal
relations of anyone on this list--is at issue, indeed maybe at the heart
of
the matter. Nor is it a matter of protocol, or the limits of email, it has
to do with argument by evasion. It follows that those who use it will
refuse
to recognise that they do, and that it is extremely difficult to persuade
them not to.
Wystan
>
|