Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Boy, that sure put a damper on my day.  :-P  Ack, gag.  Had trouble reading
the whole thing, but a perverse fascination kept me going.  I think I am going
to be sick...

D!

    Is that Bishop Pike (who was quoted) the one that died when he was lost
    in the desert?  (I hope so.)
    
    Lorna
    

    In view of .0 I'm surprised that *all* women aren't atheists

    How about some poets?
    
    Man is the hunter; woman is his game:
    The sleek and shining creatures of the chase,
    We hunt them for the beauty of their skins.
    .
    .
    .
    Man for the field and woman for the hearth:
    Man for the sword and for the needle she:
    Man with the head and woman with the heart:
    Man to command and woman to obey;
    All else confusion.                    
    
    		Alfred, Lord Tennyson
    		1809-1892
    		"The Princess", V.147 & 427   
    

    Re: .2
    
    It must be the same Bishop Pike (of California).  He was not exactly
    the most egalatarian of men.  Yes, he died in the desert.  Had gone
    there with his third wife (a woman about 30 years his junior) and a
    bottle of soda in order to experience the world of Jesus.  Since Jesus
    survived his time in the desert and Bishop Pike did not, I assume
    that Pike's mission was unsuccessful. The woman survived.
    
    I'm pleased that the Episcopal church has (generally) progressed beyond
    Pike and his foolishness.  Witness the new woman Bishop.  Still, it's
    amazing that women join organized religions at all, given the
    outrageous sexism of most.  (Except Wicca!!)  
    
    I am always astonished at the misogynist attitudes of Christianity
    since, as far as I can tell, the four gospels all tell of the
    faithfulness and courage of the women in Jesus' life.  When all the men
    fled during the crucifixion, the women stood at the cross.  While the
    men hid in terror, the women went to the tomb.  
    
    Come to think of it, Judiasm has some incredible heroines: Judith,
    Ruth, to name the most famous, both of whom saved the Jews from
    near-extinction by their actions.
    
    Basically, religious writers who are sexist haven't paid attention to
    the Bible.  Wonder if it's the same with the Koran, Vedas, and so on. 

>    In view of .0 I'm surprised that *all* women aren't atheists

I wouldn't think that the views of (certain) churches would turn women against
belief in God, just against those churches.  Perhaps even organized religion
as a whole.  Notice there were no quotes directly from God, only those filtered
through men!  :-)

D! 

    In a bookstore the other day, a woman walked up next to me and said
    in a gruff voice, "HUSBAND!"  I turned to look at her looking intently
    at the door when from behind a man said, "Is it time to leave?"
    rather weakly.  There was no reply, but she began to walk to the
    door and he fell in behind her.
    
    [Just offered for some perspective.]
    
    Bud

    Amazing stuff!
    
    The more recent excerpts are all the more shocking because they
    are recent.
    
    >    Do you know that each of your women is an Eve? The sentence of God - on
    >this sex of yours - lives in this age; the guilt must necessarily live too.
    >You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you
    >are the first deserter of the divine law.
    >
                                                Tertullian in 22 CE 
    
    I think this common interpetation of the Adam and Eve story is the root
    of sexism in Western society.  
    
    It is shocking to see how blind major philosophers were. 
    
    -roger
    
    

    
    re:.7
    it is difficult to see how this is sexist. the man is being treated
    the way he is either because a) he is a 'wimp' or b) the wife is a
    'shrew' not because of either party's sex.
    

    
    	Well, I just wonder what their MOMs would say about this
    	today?!  
    
    							kim *8^}

    Jerry, If you were to reverse the genders for a moment, it would be
    sexist (and he would be an ass in my eyes), this she is indeed sexist
    and an ass.
    
    Ignorance, bossiness, over-dominance jerry, is not gender spacific.
    
    People are all of these things.
    
    
    As for the quotes;  Makes you sort of wonder how the hell we, as human
    beings, have come even this far huh?
    
    
    

    And as recent as 1984....
    
    	"A good Catholic could NEVER vote for a political candidate
    	who approved of abortion, or (and this is the clincher..)
    
    		OR who favored leaving the decision up to 
    
    			THE WOMAN.
    
    					Cardinal O'Connor, N.Y.
    
    
    Someday...someday...we WILL overcome!
    
    Charlotte
    

    "How can he be clean that is born of a woman?"
    
    		-- Job XXV, 4, c. 325 B.C.
    
    
    "All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman."
    
    		-- Ecclesiasticus XXV, 19, c. 180 B.C.
                                                      

    "A woman should be covered with shame by the thought that she is
    a woman."
    
    		-- Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, II, c. 190.

    re: any number of the preceeding quotes:
    
    "Whada buncha pinheads"
    
    	-- Steve III, c. 1989
    

    these quotes remind me of the research I had made (while in college)
    on Salem Witchcraft Hangings.  The Sea Merchants (wealthy) created
    laws to keep the Farmers of Massachusetts poor and in fear by hanging women
    (and some men) who practiced their definition of Witchcraft.
    
    
    just another illustration of negative motives, empowered by language
    
             Carol

    RE: .0 It should be noted that several of the Biblical quotes have
    had some selective editing that either change the meaning greatly
    (especially the butchering of the I Timothy quote) or ignore
    significant contextual information. Of course taking quotes out of
    context or editing them is not a new problem.

    ~Cliff

    .16 (especially the butchering of the I Timothy quote)
    
    what was selectively edited?  by whom?  for what?
    
             Carol

re: .16
    
    Please enter the 'misquoted' quotes as you know them, and feel free
    to supply all the contextual info you have.  There's plenty of geniune
    sexism around for us to cling to lies or fabricate our own examples.
    Sexism needs no help.
    
    How about:
    
    "Women are little balls of fluff"
    
    A Worcester cop in a story in the newspaper some 5 years ago.
    
    "The ideal woman is a nymphomaniac who owns a chain of pizza parlors"
    George Kevarian, Massachusetts politician, less than a year ago.
    
    Looks like all the "shame" at being born what you were born belongs
    with these jerks and all the jerks who believe(d) in them.  If sexism
    didn't seem so much to be just the result of little boy panic it would
    be scary.  Thank heaven today we can laugh at these guys and give
    all the goodies to Alan Alda and those of his ilk!  Can you believe
    women actually *slept* (do sleep) with men like this?  "Of course
    I'll take what you have to offer you shameful, wicked, silly, bad 
    little thing!"  What does that make them??  Keep on talkin', guys!  ;-)

    "I listen to the feminists and all these radical gals ---most of them
    are failures.  They've blown it.  Some of them have been married, but
    they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the
    bathroom.  These women just need a man in the house.  That's all they
    need.  Most of these feminists need a man to tell them what time of day
    it is and to lead them home.  And they blew it and they're mad at all
    men.  Feminists hate men.  They're sexists.  They hate men --that's
    their problem"

    					      -	Rev. Jerry Falwell

    RE: .17 I assume that the source who wrote what that author of .0
    quotes is the one who did it damage. In the I Timothy quote the last
    sentence quoted ends halfway through the sentence that you will
    actually find in the Bible. The whole verse from the NIV translation
    (I have no idea what was used in .0) follows:

    But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in
    faith, love, and holiness with propriety.

    From the context it says to me that childbirth and it's risks are what
    the righteous woman is being saved *from* and not that she is saved
    from something else by giving birth. I will not dispute that some of
    the previous verses, by Paul the misogynist, seem pretty sexiest but
    this verse seems very different than what was quoted.

    The old testament verses are from section dealing with a variety of
    sexual behavior. Some equally hard punishments are handed out to men
    in the same section. Death for rape for example. There is also an
    explicit statement that in the case of rape the victim is blameless
    as well. The standards of conduct may be different from the "modern"
    but they appear fairly even handed. At least more even handed than
    the quote in .0 would indicate.
    
    ~Cliff
    
    PS: If you have a workstation with BOOKREADER installed there is
    an online copy of the Bible at CVG""::WORK1:[THOMPSON.BIBLE]. That's
    a King James version I think.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto 
them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith 
the law."

			-- I Corinthians XIV, 33, c. 55


"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection."

			-- I Timothy II, 11, c. 60


"I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to 
be in silence."

			-- I Timothy II, 12


"The weaker vessel."

			__ I Peter III, 7, c. 60


"The man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man 
created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

			-- I Corinthians II, 8-9, c.55


"The woman is the glory of the man."

			-- I Corinthians XI, 7


"Nothing so much casts down the mind of man from its citadel as do the 
blandishments of women, and that physical contact without which a wife 
cannot be possessed."

			-- St. Augustine, Soliloquies, I c. 387


"To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above 
any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; contumely to God, a 
thing most contrarious to His revealed will and approved ordinances; and 
finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice."

			-- John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet 
			Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, 1558


"Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more 
understanding than women, who have but small and narrow chests, and broad 
hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and 
bear and bring up children."

			-- Martin Luther, Table-Talk, DCCXXV, 1569

	 I have a hard time here with all the Biblical
	 quotes...especially the quotes taken from Paul's letters.

	 There were many REASONS for Paul (and others) to say these
	 things at those periods in time.  Many of them being for the
	 safety and welfare of the women.

	 These lines where written for the people of those times to
	 guide them and help them...and are not valid for application
	 today....

	 Taken as simply quotes they seems sexist and awful.  But
	 taken in the context of what life was like back then, and the
	 reasoning behind them, most of these quotes were not meant in
	 a sexist/demeaning way......


	 Anyway.......kath

    .22  
    but, if it were not meant to be demeaning and controlling (which
    is hard to imagine), many a man has learned this picture of woman
    for Centuries.
    
    if that is protection, I am glad I am free of it!

re: .22
Regardless of how they were meant at the time, or what the context
was, unfortunately they contributed to shaping the (Western) society 
we have today, and are sometimes used today, explicitly, by individuals and 
institutions as justification for sexism.

The basic concept that women are inferior beings (presumably to men),
is something we are still fighting.  And I really can't help but be
angered by it, no matter when they lived.  Women then (whenever "then"
is) were just as human, just as worthy of respect, as they are now.

	MKV

    
    re: .22 (kathy)
    
    Yep, I agree, that in the context of the times, of the particular
    men doing the writing, and of the nature of society then, the Biblical
    quotes are not necessarily sexist.  The trouble is...as you said...
       "..are not valid for application today..."
    which is precisely the problem.  Folks are still quoting, and living
    by the very exact word of the Bible....not the context, not the
    intended meaning, not the thought for the time...but the actual word.
    so it is being applied today...however we may dislike it!
    
    Certainly, as someone suggested there are PLENTY of 20th century
    sexist quotes which we can speak to.  so, let's hear more!
    
    deb
    

    
    	re: .22
    
    	Well, whatever their reasons...SAVE me from persons trying
    	to save me from things. I'm glad I'm here and now cause
    	if I was back then, SOMEBODY would have had a BIG problem.
    
    					kim *8^}
    

    This isn't a quote but a description taken from "Cultural
    Anthropology" by Marvin Harris.

    After reading of several cases of cultures where men needed to be
    purified after spending time with women (very common it seems) they
    showed a picture, I can't remember the group's name, of a man
    swallowing a 3 foot stick which he then moved around until he threw
    up. This was believed to be the only way to cleanse himself after
    being with a woman. If we're so damned disgusting why do they want
    to sleep with us at all. Perhaps they are all thinking of England.
    liesl

"Women are nothing but machines for producing children."

			--- Napoleon, letter, Jan. 9, 1817


"The generality of women appear to me as children to whom I would rather give 
a sugar plum than my time."

			-- John Keats, letter, Oct. 21, 1818


"The fundamental fault of the female character is that is has no sense of 
justice."

			-- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women, 1851


"A woman represents a sort of intermediate stage between a child and a 
man."
			-- Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga und Paralipomena, 
			1851


"When women write they always have one eye on the paper and the other on a 
man."

			-- Heinrich Heine, Lutezia, 1854


"Woman is capricious and coy, and has less straightforwardness than man."

			-- Francis Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty, 
			1883


"Thou goest to women? Don't forget thy whip."

			-- F.W. Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, XVIII, 
			1885


"When a woman inclines to learning there is usually something wrong with 
her sex apparatus."

			-- F.W. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1886


"The Bible says that woman was the last thing God made. Evidently He made 
her on Saturday night. She reveals His fatigue."

			-- Alexandre Dumas (fils), 1825 - 1895


"No woman is a genius: women are a decorative sex. They never have anything 
to say, but they say it charmingly. They represent the triumph of matter 
over mind, just as men represent the triumph of mind over morals."

			-- Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891


These are all quoted in A New Dictionary of Quotations, H.L. Mencken, pub.
Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, under "Woman." 

.27> Perhaps they are all thinking of England.

   Huh?

    It's a reference to the instruction allegedly given to brides in
    Victorian times, Sharon:  "Men are beasts, but the [British] race
    must go on, so when he comes to you to satisfy his needs, my dear,
    close your eyes and think of England"
    
    			      			=maggie		

    It is  said  that in earlier days English mothers would give their
    daughters  a  lecture on sex on the day before their wedding. This
    lecture  was  allegedly  "Lie  on  your  back,  dear, and think of
    England."

--David

    Well, Liesl, they sleep with us because, well, maybe we're not actually
    *that* disgusting... or just not all the time... or...
    
     How about a corollary quote:
    
    "Horny [hetero] men rarely denigrate women."  
    
    or
    
    "Man, (literally), is the only creature that bites the hand that
    comforts him"
                                                          
    Sandy, 1989

[You want context? Have I got context! I have the KJV Bible on line. -- CEH]

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet
and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge
of the truth.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus;
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth
in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands,
without wrath and doubting.
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel,
with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls,
or costly array;
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the
man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue
in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

[This is the complete chapter. In context it's just as sexist. -- CEH]

    RE: .33
    
    Note that that is PAUL writing, not God (unless you believe in "direct
    dictation"!  Quoting "the Bible" as though all its parts were written by
    one Author (God) should be left to the Biblical literalists.  I had to
    fight those battles in the South in the mid-50's wh I, a girl, wanted
    (and finally got) my license to preach.  But that's another story...
    
    Nancy
      

    Unfortunately, the practice of interpreting the Bible as God's literal
    and holy inspired word did not end in the '50s.  There are several
    fundamentalist sects today that still believe that, and therefore,
    guided in large part by Paul's writings, consider women lower forms of 
    life.
    
    Karen

    .34
    
    I do not believe .33 implied God dictated any chapters.  Most of
    us realize the Bible was written by several human (male) authors.
    
    Which is the point of this discussion.  These teachings continue
    today, unfortunately.  I personally do not believe that God intended
    to dehumanize woman.  Men of that period chose to.
    
    Carol
    

    This is a side issue, but Paul may not have been the author of the the
    text cited in .33 anyway.  If I am not mistaken, the pastoral epistles
    (of which I Timothy is included) are categorized by most scholars as
    deutero-pauline, meaning that they were composed by other authors,
    emulating Paul's epistle genre and presuming to write in Paul's name
    (this was apparently not considered unethical back then.)  Paul's
    genuine writings were not generally as sexist as the deutero-pauline
    works.  An example is in another one of his epistles (I think to the
    Galatians), where Paul asserts that, under the new religion that he
    proclaims, there is neither male nor female.  It seemed that this
    doctrine was interpreted a little too radically for some of the more
    conservative of the early Christians, who then responded in the manner
    expressed by the text in .33. 
    
    -- Mike 

    Adam was "not deceived"?  Gee, I thought he was too.  I didn't recall
    him saying, "No, Eve, we shouldn't."  And I doubt he was banished
    from Eden "just because".  It's a pretty corny story, at any rate.
    
    The book "Reinventing Eve" addresses the self-serving agenda of
    the men who invented this version of the myth and it is
    *fascinating*!  You'd be shocked at the mythical references of things 
    before these men got ahold of them.  The serpent represented truth/
    goodness, which only women recognized.  Hell comes from Helle, a place 
    considered by the Scandinavian cultures to be "woman's world" - a wonderful
    world of life, sisterhood, childbirth, etc.  And the "knowledge", 
    (the tree of which they were not supposed to eat), was that woman, 
    and not man, is the ultimate creator.  Woman, it said, sought out
    "truth" and "knowledge" willingly, and didn't simply accept the 
    "rules".
    
    Given that both this interpretation and the other exist, it's pretty
    telling that one was suppressed and the other was held up as THE
    correct one - the one where woman is bad, nasty, stupid and responsible
    not only for her sins, but for all the sins of the men around her,
    too.
    

Re .38 -

On the subject of how woman fared in the creation story, James Frazer
(author of The Golden Bough) has this to say: 

"... the great Jehovistic artist [author of second chapter of 
Genesis]...hardly attempts to hide his deep contempt for woman. The 
lateness of her creation, and the irregular and undignified manner of it -- 
made out of a piece of her lord and master, after all the lower animals had 
been created in a regular and decent manner -- sufficiently marks the low 
opinion he held of her nature; and in the sequel his misogynism, as we may 
fairly call it, takes on a still darker tinge, when he ascribes all the 
misfortunes and sorrows of the human race to the credulous folly and 
unbridled appetite of its first mother."

		-- James Frazer, Folk-lore in the Old Testament, p. 2
        

    
    "You've come a long way, baby!"

    About 15 years or so ago, I had a dream.  Now I know dreams are
    just dreams, but this one not only had a profound effect on me,
    but also relates.
    
    I died, and I met the Christian God.  He wanted to know why I never
    had any children.  I proceeded to tell him that my thoughts that
    that the gift/ability/curse, (depending on who you were!), of giving 
    birth to human beings was something that made me a slave to need in
    my patriarchal culture and as such, I turned away from it.
                            
    He, (I was raised in the Catholic theory so it was definitely HE),
    chuckled and said to me, and I quote:
    
    "Would I create a being that couldn't make other beings?  I created
    woman first, as a human to make other humans.  I created man to
    make her lot easier - to make her more amenable to her fate as a
    being - to make her want." 
    
    That dream finally made me realize what was wrong not only with
    Catholicism, not only with religion, but with Western Society, (which
    is derived from religion).
    
    And to me, it makes perfect sense.  If this God's intention was
    to creates a human exemplified by Adam, he'd have to keep on doing it.
    There would be no Sunday - no day of rest!
    
    When I was an undergrad at UMass, there was a lot of current literature
    floating around about immaculate conception and how it really does
    happen.  Really!  And I was a Chemistry/Pre-Med major - we read
    this stuff with a critical eye.  But this is getting into *quite* the 
    tangent.
    
    Suffice it to say, that society today has evolved from societies
    past and we, as women, are still dealing with long-ingrained beliefs,
    feelings and actual teachings, (as examplified by this string),
    that women are considered "less than human" by men which manifests
    itself in countless, (and continuing!),  modern ways.
    
    
      

    Here's one that manages to blast both sexes. It's from Eduard von
    Hartman a follower of Schopenhauer.

    "Sexual impulses are degrading, shameful, and inevitable. Erotic
    pleasure is no greater than any other; despite repeated
    disapointments of a concious nature, however, the Idea and Will
    impel one into coitus. Before marriage, which occurs at the age of
    25 in the more civilised classes, either abstinence or vice results
    in more pain than the total of subsequent coital pleasure. Of two
    people in love, one usually loves more than the other with resultant
    misfortune. Adultery in marriage is almost inevitable and invariably
    unpleasant. The sexes are extremely different from each other and
    exert their attraction, as do gorillas, through size and beauty"

    I bet this guy was fun at parties. liesl

"The wife of a righteous man is righteous herself; the wife of a murderer 
is as he is."	-- Hebrew proverb


"Grief for a dead wife lasts as far as the door." 	-- Italian proverb


"A wife is never to be trusted, even if she has borne her husband seven 
children."	-- Japanese proverb


"Beat your wife on the wedding day, and your married life will be happy."	
-- Japanese proverb


"Wives and sheep should be brought home before dark."	-- Portuguese 
proverb


"When a man takes a wife, he ceases to dread Hell."	-- Rumanian proverb


"A wife may love a husband who never beats her, but she does not respect 
him."	-- Russian proverb


"Beat your wife before dinner, and again after supper."	-- Russian proverb


"A wife is perfect only twice: when she enters the house after the wedding, 
and when she is carried out."	-- Ukrainian proverb


"No woman is a wife who is not a mother too."	-- Welsh proverb



These are all quoted in H.L. Mencken's A New Dictionary of Quotations, 
under "Wife," pp. 1293 - 1294.

    How did it come to *be* a law?  We can quote sexist lawmakers too,
    can't we?  And if the law says "either partner" can bow out of a
    childless marriage, why does the quote state that "No woman..."?  
    
    Why not,
    
    "No person is a spouse who is not a parent too"?  
    
    My guess is because it's borne of a sexist desire to see it as the 
    woman's fault.  And with women being unable to get decent paying
    jobs, (when this law was enacted), the phrase that "either partner"
    could bow out is just lip service.  Sure she *could* if she didn't
    mind living on the streets.

Celtic (or more accurately Druidic) law is an oral tradition that dates back
well before the time of Christ.

The Welsh folk-saying a few back is indeed sexist, but it is merely the modern
memory of the Druidic law, which in fact is stronger than .46 suggests, since 
the option for divorce lies entirely with the wife. A woman had the option to
choose to consider herself not to be a wife if her husband failed to father a
child by her within a year and a day of the Samain (Halloween) following the 
marriage. The husband could take a second wife, but the first was absolute
monarch of the home. ie the husband could only get a divorce if the wife agreed.

The correct form should be 

	"A woman be a woman free if soon a mother she not be"

/. Ian .\

     
    "The man's desire is for the woman; but the woman's desire is rarely
    other than for the desire of the man."
    
    		-- S.T. Coleridge, Table-Talk, July 23, 1827

                                                                        
    "We don't want no women here....Tell the women to stay the hell
    home and make babies and cook! Get the [g-word] women outta here."
    
    		-- George Rogers, captain of Lafayette Associates' bowling
    		team, quoted in Bella English's column in today's Boston Globe
    		about women trying to become score-keepers for the
    		all-male Chamber of Commerce Bowling League at the
    		Candlepin Bowling Lanes in Salem, MA.
    
    
    Another captain she quotes:
    
    "There is awful filthy language and it's just that I don't want
    women to take that kind of abuse. Any kind of decent woman I don't
    think would want to sit and listen to that [b-word] all night long."
     

"Mitchell Mullen of Medieval Manor admits that the show is sexist, even 
misogynistic. But he adds, 'Unfortunately, I have to divorce myself from my 
own personal feelings. It's a job and we're working as actors and not 
punching holes in computer programs.'"

		-- Boston Globe, 11/30/89, from a review of a dinner 
		theater performance by Medieval Manor, which features "a 
		meal you can eat with your fingers and a bawdy show served 
		and performed by singing 'wenches' and a misogynist king."


I have to wonder if the Globe would have printed this if Mullen had been an 
actor in a show with racist or anti-Semitic overtones. Would they have 
printed:

"Mitchell Mullen of Medieval Manor admits that the show is racist, even 
anti-Semitic. But he adds, 'Unfortunately, I have to divorce myself from my 
own personal feelings. It's a job and we're working as actors and not 
punching holes in computer programs.'"

>>"Mitchell Mullen of Medieval Manor admits that the show is sexist, even 
>>misogynistic.
    
>>I have to wonder if the Globe would have printed this if Mullen had been an 
>>actor in a show with racist or anti-Semitic overtones.
    
    And beyond what the Globe will or won't print, I have to wonder why
    both men and women support this establishment.  It's not like Medieval
    Manor is in the brink of bankruptcy or anything.  There are all kinds
    of ways in which this society supports and condones overt and covert acts of
    violence against women.
    
    Laura
    

    
    
>    And beyond what the Globe will or won't print, I have to wonder why
>    both men and women support this establishment.  It's not like Medieval
>    Manor is in the brink of bankruptcy or anything.  There are all kinds
>    of ways in which this society supports and condones overt and covert acts of
>    violence against women.
    
    
    I think what they are doing there is putting on a show that is
    reminiscent of the period. There are all kinds of entertainment of this
    variety.
    
    ed

    I just wondered whether it's as acceptable to admit in print that
    you're doing something "racist" or "anti-Semitic", as it apparently
    is to admit you're doing something "sexist" or "misogynist". My
    feeling is that it's not, and the reason is, we've become a lot
    less tolerant of racism and anti-Semitism than we used to be in our 
    society, but we still tolerate sexism and misogyny (even when they're 
    explicitly defined as such) all over the place. 
    
    Dorian

    First off I think you have to take the context and the scale of what
    is going on into account. I've been to Medieval Mannor and while it
    is deffinately bawdy (a type of humor I like BTW) I did not see it
    as demeaning to me as a woman. The "wenches" are not treated as
    slaves and give as good as they get when it comes to snappy
    comebacks and sharp remarks. liesl

>                        -< this isn't that big a deal >-
    
     Boy, am I glad you said that first.
    
     Since Medieval Manor is similar to a play, I think it is unfair to
    characterize it in the same way as you would a more traditional
    establishment. Everyone is role playing. It is not real life. And I
    think that is what makes the difference.
    
     The Doctah

    I think Dorian is referring more to the words used in the newspaper 
    account of the place rather than the place itself.  
    
    Would the newspaper have quoted an actor in a play as saying, "Well, 
    yes the play is racist, even anti-Semitic, but...", and if so, would 
    there be no repercussions?  I tend to think the outrage would be
    swift and fast either to the play itself, to the newspaper or more
    likely to both.  I think her point may be that sexism is so accepted
    that it's not even a big deal to admit it flat out and newspapers
    can and will print such comments with complete impunity.  Why is
    this so?  One reason certainly has to be that anyone crying racism
    or anti-Semitism is taken seriously and respected, (despite the
    personal feelings of the slanderer).  One crying sexism is still
    often treated with a kind of exasperation, rolling eyes and heavy 
    sighs.  How did *you* feel when you just read Dorian's last entry?? 
    

> How did *you* feel when you just read Dorian's last entry?? 
    
    Although I see your/Dorian's point, my initial reaction
    was to wonder what he meant by "punching holes in computer
    programs".  I would guess that the analogous remark about 
    racism/Anti-Semitism would be less acceptable _only_ because
    of historical precedent; i.e., that racism has become a taboo 
    subject to talk about because of the Holocaust but is still 
    widely practiced.

    I think that recognition of sexist and misogynist elements
    within our society does _not_ constitute acceptance of them,
    but is instead a step in the right direction.  (In other words,
    I'm glad he said "yes, but..." instead of "huh?").

>    Although I see your/Dorian's point, my initial reaction
>    was to wonder what he meant by "punching holes in computer
>    programs".
    
    I think he was trying to say that he was playing a role and not doing a
    regular job. Ie the misogyny stops when the performance is over and it
    is acted misogyny as opposed to genuine misogyny.
    
>    I think that recognition of sexist and misogynist elements
>    within our society does _not_ constitute acceptance of them,
>    but is instead a step in the right direction.  (In other words,
>    I'm glad he said "yes, but..." instead of "huh?").
    
    I tried to say that in my last reply but it didn't come out well so I
    edited it out. Thanks for expressing what I was feeling. :-)
    
     The Doctah 

>>    Although I see your/Dorian's point, my initial reaction
>>    was to wonder what he meant by "punching holes in computer
>>    programs".
>    
>    I think he was trying to say that he was playing a role and not doing a
>    regular job. Ie the misogyny stops when the performance is over and it
>    is acted misogyny as opposed to genuine misogyny.

    That much I understood.  It was on a purely literal level that I
    had a problem with this.  What, exactly, does someone who "punches
    holes in computer programs" do all day?  Vandalize the input to card
    readers?  Sit around with a hole punch and a stack of listings?
    Attend code reviews and make critical comments?  Take an ice pick to
    disks?

Actually, I found the juxtaposition of Dorian's 'old forms of legal rape', with
the comments that 'that was then, this is now', and Dorian's 'is racism less
accepted than sexism' with the comments that 'it is a recreation of then'
very powerful. It shows how something that happened in the past, that all
right-thinking feminists :-) know is wrong, can continue to creep into the
present, and be condoned. The separation between past and present is pretty
slim.
	Mez

    re last
    
    Hey, I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em...!  ;-)

    I don't know, I don't think "Yes but..." is a far cry from "Huh?"
    Because even when men said, "Huh?" they knew.  So now they're
    freed from having to even feign ignorance because now they know
    women aren't ignorant - that we know, too.  In that context, 
    "Yes, but..." seems much more sinister to me.  Ignorance I can 
    deal with.  When you point out the logic, the ignorance defense
    fails.  But flat out admission with a 'so what' attitude is a little
    harder to fight.  What do you say to that?  "Oh, I was just wondering."???

>It was on a purely literal level that I
>    had a problem with this.  What, exactly, does someone who "punches
>    holes in computer programs" do all day?  Vandalize the input to card
>    readers?  Sit around with a hole punch and a stack of listings?
>    Attend code reviews and make critical comments?  Take an ice pick to
>    disks?                   
    
    I thinl what we are dealing with here is a non-technical person making
    pseudo-technical statements. (Maybe he took a class once with paper
    tapes or punch cards). Obviously, there is little literal relevance to
    the concept of "punching holes in computer programs," at least none
    that I expect this particular person to understand. (It is a very
    esoteric topic, and the comment seemed far more general).
    
    The Doctah

There is an important difference between "The role I play is sexist, but 
it's only a role," and "the show I am in is sexist, but it's only a job".
So long as there are sexists in life, they should be mirrored in art and
entertainment; but that is a very different thing from art or entertainment
which is intrinsically sexist, and whose appeal may even come from that
sexism.

As I read Dorian's quotation, the actor wasn't just saying "Don't confuse
me with the role I play" -- he was explicitly admitting that he plays a
role in a sexist entertainment ("the show is sexist").

Again, an analogy:  nobody would have problems with someone saying "I play 
the part of someone who hates blacks," but what would we think if someone
said "I play a part in a play that makes fun of blacks"?

I think Dorian's point is not what all this says about the actor (after all,
would you expect fine distinctions from someone who talks about punching holes
in computer programs?) but what it says about our mores, when a comment like
this passes by almost without notice, rather than standing as a serious
condemnation.

	-Neil

After laboriously reading all of these notes (although I admit I skimmed the
play rathole), I make these comments about the quotes within these confines:

The context of the creation of Adam and Eve was that it was not good for
Adam to be alone so God created a help-meet (suitable helper - "co-worker"
before some of you get bent out of shape) for Adam out of his flesh (the rib).

This was performed different from the animals to underscore the bond between
man and woman and being of *ONE* flesh.  While the culture of the Bible
years (a span of 1600 years with over 40 authors) was male dominated, the 
principles set forth in the Bible (as I interpret them) was that man and woman
worked (played, whatever) together.

We can find another concept to what I think I'm attempting to say in the
oriental Yin and Yang.  They represent *complimentary* forces that make up
a whole, not opposing forces (my interpretation) that compete.

Regarding the fall of Adam and Eve, they were both guilty of the transgression
(which was disobedience to their Creator).  While Eve is the one who Moses said
did the deed first, Moses clearly states that she "gave some to her husband,
who was with her, and he ate it."  He was there and perhaps not tempted
by Eve to eat (by by the serpents words) as some portray the story.
[Moses is said to have written the Pentetuch.]

Note .38 does disturb me because it presents a flip-flop of traditional 
interpretation of the Creation and the Fall of the first parents; it seems
to intentionally discard the whole of the story for its opposite.  It would
disturb me less if the Genesis story was said to be an analogy rather than
an actual occurence.

I recognize that because I choose to embrace certain beliefs, it
contradicts some of the tenor I feel from some of these notes, and as such
can cause reciprocal reactions but my noting.  However, I believe there can
be a unity among the different.  I do not eschew equality of the sexes, or 
of the races, or even the creeds, but I do disdain dominance of any of these
isms.

"Valuing differences" is a nice phrase here at Digital but I have difficulty
seeing it borne out in some of the people who champion it the loudest.

I confess that I fall into a few Ism categories (idealism, for one) and I
would dare to gerneralize that we all have one ism or another.  I believe
the ideal of valuing differences is to allow me the freedom to pursue my
ism, unless and until is impinges on your right to pursue your ism.

To this end I ask myself what happens if opposing isms have the doctrine of
eliminating the other?  To which I answer: it is probably an ism not 
worth following.

You can say to me, "I believe my-ism is the way to go." You can even tell me 
why with conviction in your heart and soul why it is the way to go.  But if
after our debate, I shake my head and say you are wrong, let us agree to
disagree and be friends anyway.  Don't bash me for my beliefs; there is a
significant difference between disagreeing on why you believe what you believe
and bashing someone's beliefs.

Regarding the topic: Quotable Sexists:  Any group should be able to find ample
damning material to support their cause.  Statistics are used shamelessly
(example: Massachusetts income tax went up three quarters of one percent
/Massachusetts income tax went up 15%  (It went from five percent to five and
three quarters)).  I would prefer to see supportive material for a cause than
damning material. 

Am I closing my eyes to the injustices?  I like to think I am proactive in 
encouragement, not discouragement; proactive in bringing together, not 
separating; proactive in becoming militant for and not against. 

Perhaps I am just naive.

Mark Metcalfe

    Mark,
    
    I would rather that you, after hearing about my -ism, shook your
    head and said, "I don't see how that could ever work" or said "There
    is no way I could do anything like that" instead of "you are wrong".
    
    Now, you wrote that reply .38 disturbed you because it was the reverse
    of what you had learned (about the "traditional interpretation of the
    Creation and the Fall of the first parents").  However, from your
    phrasing ("[I]t seems to intentionally discard the whole of the story
    for its opposite."), you seem to believe that the version in .38 is
    newer, and derived from the Bible story.  It isn't.  It is the older
    by far, and goes back to before the invention of writing.  (We get
    *deeply* into archaeology here.)  But it was never the precise
    reverse; no version has woman created first, and then men.  Always
    women and men were created together, in the same manner.
    
    If you want to contemplate reversals, contemplate why the Bible
    made its reversal.
    
    							Ann B.

>    Mark,
>    
>    I would rather that you, after hearing about my -ism, shook your
>    head and said, "I don't see how that could ever work" or said "There
>    is no way I could do anything like that" instead of "you are wrong".
    
I accept your wording although I think that one can say "you are wrong"
[and perhaps I should include 'from my perspective' or 'from what I understand
to be right'.] but despite the difference in our learning or belief
*you* are not wrong.  So I guess I accept this transgression of words because
I try to make it a point to tell my kids that when the do something wrong
they have done something bad but they are not bad.  So I recant to say,
"After hearing your -ism that is different than mine, we can say to each other
we think each others' ideas in the matter are wrong, but that we can coexist
rather nicely anyway."


>    Now, you wrote that reply .38 disturbed you because it was the reverse
>    of what you had learned (about the "traditional interpretation of the
>    Creation and the Fall of the first parents").  However, from your
>    phrasing ("[I]t seems to intentionally discard the whole of the story
>    for its opposite."), you seem to believe that the version in .38 is
>    newer, and derived from the Bible story.  It isn't.  It is the older
>    by far, and goes back to before the invention of writing.  (We get
>    *deeply* into archaeology here.)  But it was never the precise
>    reverse; no version has woman created first, and then men.  Always
>    women and men were created together, in the same manner.
    
Several points come to mind and I recognize that these points come from what
I have learned.  However, I cannot comment on the age or authenticity of the 
.38 writings because I have not been instructed about it.

The concept of man and woman being created together, though, does not disturb
me, even in light of the Genesis account (and I consider myself to be a
sincere and serious Christian) because I believe that woman and man were 
created to be one.  I must note your next point before my next comment:

>    If you want to contemplate reversals, contemplate why the Bible
>    made its reversal.

I can understand Moses' dilemma in relating the creation story.  

[Incidently, <rathole coming> I am careful to point out that Moses is the 
writer.  I believe the Bible to be wholly true and perfect in its intent 
and purpose but because of the more than 40 authors over 1600 years, I do 
not think it would be right to state that it is entirely accurate at all 
points.  Meaning:  Christ used illustrations (plank in the eye, etc); it
is entirely possible that other stories [and here's where I must be careful]
are not to be taken literally.  I believe the Bible to be a historically
accurate document and I am inclined to believe in the Genesis account as
it happened but if it is an allegory, it does not change the message of the 
Bible, nor my belief in its salvation.  <endrathole>]

Having diverted to that, imagine the patriarch attempting to explain that
both man and woman were created at the same time.  Man from dust, woman from
the man.  God creates out of nothing - woman is part of man, man is part of 
woman, therefore they are the same and yet different. 
Yin and Yang are the same (shapes) and yet different but they make a whole.

It didn't really matter if indeed one was formed before the other but that
it was not good to be alone so the complimentary partner was made to make 
the whole.

The quotable sexist jokes cut both ways in this (and I need to justify
my entry here by doing this):

  Eve was created from Adam's Rib: It's a cheaper cut.  --Archie Bunker

  Eve was created after Adam because God improved on his first mistake. 
          -unknown (maybe my wife ;-) )

Sadly for those who embrace either, both ideas are very wrong.  Neither of us 
were mistakes but were meant for union.  At least, that is my perception.

I am verbose enough I could soapbox more on this but I better quit.

Mark

P.S.  Thanks for the thoughtful response.

    This potential rathole could become a topical note if we moved
    it to the religion conference.  Wanna do that?
    
    							Ann B.

		Man is the powder; Woman the spark.

					Lope de Vega, _La Dama Melindrosa_

    "The only position for women in SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating
    Committee] is prone."
    
    		-- Stokely Carmichael, quoted in Robin Morgan's book
    	  	   The Demon Lover

    "Women do not make good contract bridge players.  They lack the killer
    instinct."
    
    				--- Omar Sharif (in his 4 aces bridge
    				    playing days)

    Tell that to thos two little old ladies who beat us last night!
    

    The Globe recently had as an advertising insert an 8.5" x 11" item 
    pushing "Citrus Hills" homesites in Forida. On the "front" side it had
    in very large type the message "Turn this over to see some of Florida's
    most attractive figures" (taking up 2/3rds of the page).
    
    My eight year old son brought it to me in puzzement, and asked "what
    does this mean?" On the other side I found: 1) a largish but murky
    picture of people around a pool, the only really recognizable one - in
    the foreground - being a curvy blond female in a bikini; 2) text
    pushing their homesites at attractive prices (according to them); 
    3) post card and 800 phone for more "information", including a plug
    from Ted Williams.
    
    Confusion about the "intent" of the 1st side message was rendered moot
    by the fact that the graphic design of the huge text incorporated an
    empty dangling bikini top.
    
    I have two questions for =wn= followers.
    
       1) What would you have said to my son?
    
       2) What would you like to say to this advertiser? "Ted" said
    	 "call today - 1-800-323-7703". You could also write to:
    		Citrus Hill Investment Properties
    		20 Industrial Park Drive
    		Nashua, NH 03062-9962
    
    The postage paid return postcard also repeated the phrase "some very
    attractive figures."
    
    				- Bruce

I just dialed the 800 number, hoping to get the name of the person
in charge of Marketing.  What I got was a recording, asking for my
name, address, and phone number, and when the best time to contact 
me is.  They promise a callback within 24 hours.  Hey, here at the
CSC even *we* strive for a 1-hour response time!

They objectify women *and* are untimely.  Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

Carla

    I just saw some ads from "Ad Week" Magazine that amazed me.  The basic
    thrust of 2 of them, addressed to Liquor advertisers, touted how the
    publications had a ready and waiting audience, eager to eat, drink and
    be merry.  One of the magazines?  Family Circle!
    
    Another example was from "Self" magazine, which carried an article
    about the positive properties of beer.  The picture on the lead page of
    the article?  A nursing mother, drinking a glass of....BEER! 
    Arrrrrrrgh.
    
    The trade publications are real eye openers.  Even the mainstream
    magazines like "Newsweek" have subtle (and not so subtle) messages.
    
    Are we becoming so accustomed to these ads that we're accepting what
    the advertisers are pushing?  Are the advertisers supporting causes to
    gain "acceptance" (example, the Virginia Slims Tennis Tournament)? 
    How are these ads addressing women and changing roles?  Sacry stuff.
    
    Judi
    

    There has been an interesting radio ad series on recently for the Wall
    Street Journal. Seemingly trying to shed their image as a paper for
    cigar-smoking bank presidents.
    
    There are always two segments, each profiling a younger, successful
    business-person who has just read something valuable, interesting, and
    "non-traditional" (i.e. not a billion dollar deal) in WSJ. One is
    always male, the other female. Each segment ends with the phrase 
    "tough, smart, and mumble" (sorry, I can't remember what other
    traditionally masculine adjective "mumble" represents), being applied
    both to the subject of the profile, and the typical WSJ reader.
    
    I can think of at least two areas for objection. First, why shouldn't
    the successful manager be portrayed (at least sometimes) as "sensitive,
    caring, and thoughtful." Or perhaps better yet as "smart, caring,
    decisive yet flexible." Second, in the ads, some of the women are
    held up as extra successful because they do well with both work and
    family; I don't remember this element ever introduced for the men (so I
    object!).
    
    Still, on balance, it seems like forward progress for the WSJ (or at
    least for their ad agency!).
    
    					- Bruce

    
.75>    Another example was from "Self" magazine, which carried an article
.75>    about the positive properties of beer.  The picture on the lead page of
.75>    the article?  A nursing mother, drinking a glass of....BEER! 
.75>    Arrrrrrrgh.
    
    
    Judi,
    
    If you are having trouble with your milk-letdown reflex, this is indeed
    one way that is advocated to have that reflex start flowing.  Mind you,
    it only takes a couple of sips and not the whole bottle of beer, but
    when I nursed all three of my girls, all three times I was reminded IN
    THE HOSPITAL to use this trick if my reflex did not start working
    once my milk came in.
    
    Luckily for me, all it took was hearing *any* baby cry :-)
    
    Gale

    re .77
    Gale,
    
    The ad mentioned shows a woman basking in the sun, enjoying her new
    baby and a bottle of beer.  The thrust of the article was about the
    wonderful properties of beer.
    
    Alcohol and a nursing mother?  What the heck are they saying!
    
    Judi
    

    I'm a party-pooper, I know, but I thought this was the "Quotable
    Sexists" topic, not the "Sexism in Advertising" topic.

    re .79
    
    Agreed, but looking at current advertising, the two arenas are
    blending, aren't they?  If we see sexist images and language, do we
    become blind to it?  
    
    Judi
    

    
    re .71
    
    Stokeley always was a little devil...