 |
 |
Mark, Given that Sean's not even offered an acknowledgement of offence, let alone an apology and then after we have managed to bring the discussion to a close Sean decided to add just a little more fuel, it seems strange to me that you would jump to his defence. It really feels like some voices would prefer not to hear from those who don't normally post and have no interest in making it easier. Rachel On 9 Oct 2014 15:42, "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > At a certain point sermonizing people to death can have a paradoxical > effect, Jimmy. There's no excuse for thoughtless or offensive language, but > there's not much excuse for this kind of rhetoric, either. Remember that > when you're deciding what should be rewarded. > > -----Original Message----- > From: JIMMY CUMMINS > Sent: Oct 9, 2014 9:54 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: another list trouble > > Sean i was not going to respond to your first mail because ignoring most > of the discussion that started after your defense of your causal sexism and > then finding two lines that interested you about Ireland's current > political set up should not be rewarded. > > but your second mail clearly shows you have not listened to the last > couple of days of exchanges and continue to show deep seated misogyny. i do > not have the power or right to 'allow' anyone, particularly women, > anything. As a man I do not get to police women's reading habits. > you do know women can decide for themselves what they will and will not > read? or what they deem offensive? you do know that sean don't you?? > > http://runamokpress.blogspot.com/ > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sean Carey <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Thursday, 9 October 2014, 14:43 > *Subject:* Re: another list trouble > > On that note Jimmy I wonder how you will find "The Second Half" Roy > Keane's updated autobiography and would you allow women and children to > read its content? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [log in to unmask] > To: BRITISH-IRISH-POETS > Sent: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 10:36 > Subject: Re: another list trouble > > Dear Tim, > like I said this kind of casual sexist remark is the thin edge of a very > damaging and alienating wedge. as Rachel as pointed out to call an argument > handbags is to imply that the argument it is somehow silly or weak. not > like a real 'man' fight. to fall back on oh i was only saying it as a joke > is a tried/tired and tested response from people who use this form of > misogynistic language implying that those who take offence ie. women don't > have a sense of humor. the rules are pretty simple using phrases particular > insults that refer to something or someone as a women ie. implying some > form of weakness is sexist. 'a girl's blouse', 'kick/catch/throw like a > girl' etc etc. but you know this already you are not stupid, you just don't > want to have to think about what or how you talk to others. if you did you > wouldn't, as richard pointed out, defend it by saying "I've seen too many > examples of someone being pounced on for simply saying something while > being a man - any objectivity being chucked out the window. But I suppose I > shouldn't say that either" you are trying to equate sexism and the > silencing of women with some nondescript time when a man was not allowed > say anything he wanted (which is normally something sexist). > when we know that the two are not historically equal. your apologies seem > meaningless because they are all followed by excuses and further denials. > > > i am glad you are deciding to leave because you are right a reasonable > discuss is not available here and it has nothing to do with those of us who > have found your defense and use of sexist language intolerable. there is no > anger here and certainly none spilling over from another list it is just a > bunch of people bored with having to deal with this kind of outdated and > offensive behavior. we have seen the same things in the past with people > using racist language and claiming they didn't see how it was offensive > because 'they are dark, so why can't i call them darkies' ... or using > phrases like 'the blacks' or 'pakies' and then complaining that the world > is gone PC mad. > > but Tim no-one should have to explain common politeness to you, if you > want to actual understand how to navigate these topics go away and do some > reading or better yet just actually listen. but i suspect you don't or you > would have actually listened before. instead you have sulked away feeling > hard done by. > > > > > > http://runamokpress.blogspot.com/ > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Thursday, 9 October 2014, 13:36 > *Subject:* Re: another list trouble > > I am sorry Jimmy, but I was 'testing' something, with my tongue firmly in > my cheek, just to see. I genuinely wrote 'a minor spat with handbags' then > suddenly thought, hey, is that sexist language? So it is then? Well well. I > quite honestly don't know what to say to that. I suppose I could ask if it > is sexist language in all cases or just in this one. It wasn't actually > meant to refer sarcastically to the subject in the way in which it has been > taken so I apologise for that - I really did not mean it in that way and I > should have seen how it could be taken that way - if I had done I would not > have said it. So sorry, there, take note people, SORRY. But I did mean it > as a genuine question as to its being sexist language. I naively thought > that it wouldn't but I've obviously misjudged the climate. > > I find what you say to me below to be quite offensive and aggressive > actually. To be told that I haven't listened and do not care. I've listened > to it all and I care. The fact that I might not agree 100% with some of the > things implied does not mean that I have not listened and do not care. I > don't normally get into the subject of sexual politics here or anywhere > else because I've seen too many examples of someone being pounced on for > simply saying something while being a man - any objectivity being chucked > out the window. But I suppose I shouldn't say that either - and so it goes > on - I can't deal with that and I don't see how anyone can. > > And yes, I heard yesterday anecdotally about what happened on the UK list > and how it started and how it developed. It does sound awful. It makes me > understand a little better now how that anger got itself transported onto > this list. > > Tim A. > > On 9 Oct 2014, at 12:33, JIMMY CUMMINS wrote: > > you see tim the problem is your 'joking' and sean's comment about the > 'cute hoor' is the thin edge of the wedge. because this kind of language > alienates people. there is too long a history of using these kind of > phrases when discussion of feminism are brought up. Alison brought up the > point about women not using this list and Alice pointed out that this kind > of language is not helpful in making women or feminists feel like they > should post and instead of actually listen you come back after hearing > rumors about another list you are not on with the implication that the > valid arguments put forward here was like a girl fight. so in essence you > clearly show that you have not listened nor do you care. > sadly the think end of the wedge is rape apologism - which is what > happened on the other list in relation to the event of the Alt/Lit scene in > the states. it really has nothing to do with you as you are not part of > that list/community. but after spending days reading some of the most vile > examples of misogyny some of us looked across to this list and saw Alice > (who i don't think is on the UK list, or at least had no part in the recent > problems) getting dismissed by a bunch of men who should know better. > > > > > > > > http://runamokpress.blogspot.com/ > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Thursday, 9 October 2014, 12:17 > *Subject:* another list trouble > > Have any of you seen or been part of the hugely damaging kerfuffle > concerned with gender that has erupted on the UK poetry list? > From what I've heard it makes the exchanges here, with regard to sexual > politics, a minor little spat with handbags. Oh, can I say that? Can I say > , 'spat with handbags'? Is that a sexist reference? Joking aside though the > whole thing that has happened there sounds awful. > > Cheers > > Tim > > > > > > >