Jimmy,
I’m glad this matter has now been resolved.
And yet from the start of this argument you seem to have been stressing that the list is obsolescent, and here you say “a reasonable discuss is not available here”. Why this insistence?
Surely it implies an angry contempt towards all participants in the list, including those of us who have supported the complaint made about the language of that jarring phrase (for which no apology has been offered)?
I have my own problems with this list, and courtesy (one of the list’s rules) which you mention has been one of them, and I’ve articulated my concerns on a number of occasions, but that hasn’t led me to such a sweeping condemnation.
For the record, though I offer no proxy excuses for the handbag reference, Tim has always seemed to me, despite the various deep disagreements we’ve had, willing to engage in “reasonable discussion”.
Jamie
From: JIMMY CUMMINS
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
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
