andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (02/04/86)
From _Against Our Will_, by Susan Brownmiller; Simon and Schuster, 1975.
"...I paid a visit to my local precinct in Greenwich Village
and asked a sergeant to show me some rape statistics. He politely
obliged. That month there had been thirty-five rape complaints,
an advance of ten over the same month for the previous year. The
precinct had made two arrests.
"`Not a very impressive record,' I offered.
"`Don't worry about it,' the sergeant assured me. `You know
what these complaints represent?'
"`What do they represent?' I asked.
"`Prostitutes who didn't get their money,' he said firmly,
closing the book."
From _The Name of the Rose_, by Umberto Eco; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983.
"`...He who laughs does not believe in what he laughs at, but
neither does he hate it. Therefore, laughing at evil means not
preparing oneself to combat it, and laughing at good means denying
the power through which good is self-propagating.'"
--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"The showers beat on broken blinds and chimney-pots"jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (02/06/86)
In article <156@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > >From _The Name of the Rose_, by Umberto Eco; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983. > > "`...He who laughs does not believe in what he laughs at, but > neither does he hate it. Therefore, laughing at evil means not > preparing oneself to combat it, and laughing at good means denying > the power through which good is self-propagating.'" If I'm not mistaken, the above quote was the opinion of a man who, by his actions, brought about the destruction of his own world. Which, to my mind, puts a very different interpretation on the words than when they occur out of context. Jeff Winslow
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (02/09/86)
> In article <156@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > > > >From _The Name of the Rose_, by Umberto Eco; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983. > > > > "`...He who laughs does not believe in what he laughs at, but > > neither does he hate it. Therefore, laughing at evil means not > > preparing oneself to combat it, and laughing at good means denying > > the power through which good is self-propagating.'" > If I'm not mistaken, the above quote was the opinion of a man who, by his > actions, brought about the destruction of his own world. Which, to my > mind, puts a very different interpretation on the words than when they > occur out of context. It seems to me that someone who finds much truth in the above quote from _The Name of the Rose_ is also a fairly humorless person. After all, there is very little to laugh at when you rule out both evil and good. (Even worse, in my humble opinion, a feminist advancing the above quote reinforces the unfortunate and false stereotype that all feminists are humorless.) The quote also seems patently false. To take a stereotype, KKKers laugh at blacks. It anyone under the impression that KKKers therefore don't hate blacks? And doesn't the above quote argue against (what I took to be) the intent of the original poster? The original context was to show that humor directed agains women's issues can be hateful and harmfull (an oversimplification, but I think gets at the point). The above quote says that humor is ineffective as a weapon, and blunts rather than creates hateful impulses. It can be taken to mean that it blunts the will to destroy evil and promote good, of course (where "good" and "feminism" are equated), but in some minds feminism *is* evil and the double standard *is* good, and these people's wills are also blunted by humor. I rather think that humor neither creates nor blunts hateful impulses. And while humor and hate can reinforce each other, so can humor and good will. > Jeff Winslow -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (02/11/86)
In article <156@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: >From _Against Our Will_, by Susan Brownmiller; Simon and Schuster, 1975. > > "...I paid a visit to my local precinct in Greenwich Village > and asked a sergeant to show me some rape statistics. He politely > obliged. That month there had been thirty-five rape complaints, > an advance of ten over the same month for the previous year. The > precinct had made two arrests. > "`Not a very impressive record,' I offered. > "`Don't worry about it,' the sergeant assured me. `You know > what these complaints represent?' > "`What do they represent?' I asked. > "`Prostitutes who didn't get their money,' he said firmly, > closing the book." I read in a newspaper somewhere that actual prostitution rape is a serious problem. It seems that they tell no one (who would believe them?), and that the rapes are often more violent than usual. Telling an attacker that he is getting a freebie only enrages him. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (02/14/86)
In article <145@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP writes: >> In article <156@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: >> > >> >From _The Name of the Rose_, by Umberto Eco; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983. >> > >> > "`...He who laughs does not believe in what he laughs at, but >> > neither does he hate it. Therefore, laughing at evil means not >> > preparing oneself to combat it, and laughing at good means denying >> > the power through which good is self-propagating.'" > >> [stuff deleted by bdc] > >It seems to me that someone who finds much truth in the above quote from >_The Name of the Rose_ is also a fairly humorless person. [...] > >The quote also seems patently false. To take a stereotype, KKKers laugh >at blacks. It anyone under the impression that KKKers therefore don't >hate blacks? > >And doesn't the above quote argue against (what I took to be) the intent >of the original poster? The original context was to show that humor >directed agains women's issues can be hateful and harmfull (an >oversimplification, but I think gets at the point). The above quote >says that humor is ineffective as a weapon, and blunts rather than >creates hateful impulses. [...] I don't much like the quote because it seems to imply that, in general, hate is a good and useful thing. Even when the hated is in fact horrid and something that should be fought, hate itself rarely provides impetus to fight it in an effective manner. I hate, despise, thoroughly loathe rape. My hate tells me I should fight it by finding rapists myself and either kill or crudely, painfully castrate them (the former only if I'm in a comparatively sympathetic mood). Only when I control my hate do I realize that that is not a long-term effective way to combat rape. The hate isn't much help at all - in fact, it's rather self-destructive. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "I once heard the remainder of a colony of ants, which had been partially obliterated by a cow's foot, seriously discussing the intentions of the gods towards their civilization." -- Archy the Cockroach
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (02/14/86)
In article <145@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP writes: > >It seems to me that someone who finds much truth in the above quote from >_The Name of the Rose_ is also a fairly humorless person. After all, >there is very little to laugh at when you rule out both evil and good. >(Even worse, in my humble opinion, a feminist advancing the above quote >reinforces the unfortunate and false stereotype that all feminists are >humorless.) I claim the right to be just as humorless as I damn well please when it comes to sexism. If I were male, the attribute of humorlessness would be construed as sobriety and seriousness. Cheryl
greenber@phri.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) (02/16/86)
> > I claim the right to be just as humorless as I damn > well please when it comes to sexism. If I were male, > the attribute of humorlessness would be construed as > sobriety and seriousness. > >Cheryl Dubious, and sexist. Chances are if you were male, you'd be under treatment, taking little pills to help pull you out of your sense of loss. (Loss of what, I wonder?). But in your case, you seem to have this need to make others as humorless as you appear to be. Or to make those happy with their life miserable, since they didn't seek your counsel before living. But then you seem to know little of what "living" is. Just what whining and moaning is all about, as if life has passed you by and you resent it. If you were male, you might (like me) see everything you have recently posted to this newsgroup and the manner in which you have written them to be typical of one of those screaming "rabid man-haters". Do you really think you're doing your cause much good? If you do.......think again..... -- ------ ross m. greenberg ihnp4!allegra!phri!sysdes!greenber [phri rarely makes a guest-account user a spokesperson. Especially not me.]
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (02/19/86)
In article <245@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: >In article <145@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP writes: >> >>It seems to me that someone who finds much truth in the above quote from >>_The Name of the Rose_ is also a fairly humorless person. After all, >>there is very little to laugh at when you rule out both evil and good. >>(Even worse, in my humble opinion, a feminist advancing the above quote >>reinforces the unfortunate and false stereotype that all feminists are >>humorless.) > > I claim the right to be just as humorless as I damn > well please when it comes to sexism. If I were male, > the attribute of humorlessness would be construed as > sobriety and seriousness. Only by people who were also humorless. And who cares what they think? Buncha soreheads. :-) I guess you haven't been reading the rebuttals to Jym Dyer's articles on related subjects. Or do you claim he's not a man? OK, OK, so one example doesn't prove anything. I think that readers of your articles already know that your sexism is deadly serious. :-) Jeff Winslow "Why do you hate me?" - Socrates
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (02/19/86)
> >> >> I claim the right to be just as humorless as I damn >> well please when it comes to sexism. If I were male, >> the attribute of humorlessness would be construed as >> sobriety and seriousness. >> >>Cheryl > > Dubious, and sexist. Chances are if you were male, you'd be under > treatment, taking little pills to help pull you out of your sense > of loss. (Loss of what, I wonder?). > > But in your case, you seem to have this need to make others as > humorless as you appear to be. Or to make those happy with their life > miserable, since they didn't seek your counsel before living. But > then you seem to know little of what "living" is. Just what whining > and moaning is all about, as if life has passed you by and you resent > it. > > If you were male, you might (like me) see everything you have recently > posted to this newsgroup and the manner in which you have written > them to be typical of one of those screaming "rabid man-haters". > > Do you really think you're doing your cause much good? > > If you do.......think again..... > > ross m. greenberg This is getting out of hand... I have had my disagreements with Cheryl, as I guess everyone knows. But this is changing from net.women to net.bashcheryl. The personal attacks on her are really getting quite vicious. What are we, sharks at a feeding frenzy? I apologize for any contribution I have made to the current atmosphere in which some people feel free to make this type of attack. I have some problems with the way that Cheryl expresses herself, but she has feelings too, you know. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff