rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) (01/28/88)
Pooh, please accept this in the spirit in which it is intended. In article <14262@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> pooh@oddjob.uchicago.edu.UUCP (for you to know and me to find out) writes: >I have my own opinions, and I don't feel obligated to agree >all the time with someone just because she calls HERSELF a >feminist too. This was your first mistake, Pooh. Mark defines feminism for everyone in soc.women. If we disagree with her ideas, if we deny that she is a victim of persecution by an evil male conspiracy, we are guilty of the crime of thinking for ourselves, which Mark and her cronies in the Berkeley Political Correctness Police will not allow. They may come with a warrant for your arrest real soon if you're not careful. (Never mind the FACT that Mark is nothing but a fabrication by a bunch of Berkeley goons who do this for fun.) >I call you the same thing that I am proud to be called: she. >It isn't MY fault if you feel it's diminutive. However, if >you wish to be referred to as "he", I will do so--WITH the >proviso that I do not personally accept that "she" is >in any way derogatory, nor that "he" is more equal than "she". There you go again, Pooh. Not accepting Mark's idea that refering to other women (or yourself) with the evil diminutive pronoun is wrong means that you are (God forbid!) POLITICALLY INCORRECT. This is a thoughtcrime in Northern California punishable by severe reprimands and ostracism by your superiors, those people who define or conform to these political correctness standards. >I've never used that argument either. I said that I preferred >to be called "she", and I also said that I thought it was silly >to be insulted by a pronoun. I'll say it again. Anyone can >be called whatever they want, but I reserve the right to say >what I think about it. Or do you want to deny me that right? >Who's telling whom what to do now? But Mark has a RIGHT to tell you what to do! It's different for Mark than it is for anybody else. Mark was PERSECUTED, and this gives her the right to do whatever she wants in dealing with other people. Mike Robinson went to a lot of trouble to explain why people who feel they have been persecuted have a right to treat you whatever way they want. >>You are the one with the party line, pooh. You are you one saying >>that ALL WOMEN must have distinctively effeminate or traditional >>names and be referred to in diminutive terms. > >Nope. I'm saying that I don't see anything wrong with being >called "she". I haven't said anything was wrong with your name. >You're getting carried away here. Oh, dear, that was a big mistake. You told Mark that she's getting carried away here, making an issue out of something as silly as pronouns. Mark has a right, no, a need, to make issues out of these things, helping her to prove to herself the existence of this conspiracy against her that she keeps talking about. By stating your invalid opinions about how ridiculous you think this is, you prove that you are part of the conspiracy against Mark. >Mark, you're going to feel oppressed any time I disagree with >you. There's not much I can do about it. Oh yes there is, Pooh. You can stop disagreeing with Mark to stop oppressing her. That would solve everything. In a way you're lucky, Pooh. You got through a full fledged no holds barred argument with Mark Ethan Smith without once being told that you're really a man using a pseudo to persecute her. (Unless I missed this somewhere.) Some of us haven't been that lucky. Sometimes she gets her alter egos to repeat this until everyone buys into it. I hope you don't have to go through this yourself. I hope no one ever has to take that shit from the MES forgery clinic gang again. Whatever the outcome, good luck, Pooh. I hope your mental illness, your having thoughts contrary to Mark Ethan Smith's idea of what feminism is, is cured soon. Me, I'll just wait for MES alter ego Mike Robinson to analyze this article to "prove" once again that I'm a man because I argue in an "unwomanly" fashion. He studied this phenomena, you know. He can tell us "pseudo-women" a mile away. That's why he was so good at creating one himself, I guess. (Me? Pissed off? Never.) --Rhonda
regard@ttidca.TTI.COM (Adrienne Regard) (01/30/88)
In article <2141@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >This was your first mistake, Pooh. Mark defines feminism for everyone in >soc.women. > . . . .means that you >are (God forbid!) POLITICALLY INCORRECT. This is a thoughtcrime in Northern >California punishable by severe reprimands and ostracism by your superiors, >those people who define or conform to these political correctness standards. Hm, this is just great. Just terrific. Used to be, people got around having to deal with real complaints by calling the complainee, "That Dyke". Then, they got around having to deal with the complaints by labeling such things as the care of the next generation (gender unspecified) as "Wimmen's issues". Now, y'all are free to ignore anything you don't like by labeling it "politically correct", and you can be satisfied that every semiconscious vehemently-non-yuppie will recoil in horror. Ah, progress. Yo, Rhonda, take your spat with Mark to e-mail. And Mark, please confine your response to Rhonda to e-mail. Thanks. LOTS! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In soc.women, a woman's perspective provides the basis. Not a man's. Adrienne Regard {philabs,trwrb,psivax}!ttidca!ttidcb!regard