This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page
>If it is offensive or thought provoking, then it may just be
>successful, in fact.
<g> glad to have served as such as successful audience!
Good thing you get fresh blood in from time to time, no? Without me,
Alan`s work would pass with no notice whatsoever.
From my point of view, YOU are all unduly sensitive and serious. Why
so afraid of a stimulating challenge? Don`t you enjoy a lively
discussion? Isn`t that what Cybermind is for?
--Wendlyn
*****************
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:55:15 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Seduction Tape Loop
You know that you are special, deserving of privilege, capable of achieving
great and unusual things; that this sets you apart, makes you special,
gives you rights that less intelligent, creative, courageous people have
neither the wit nor the gumption to earn for themselves. You know the
limits of your own nerve; what you can take, where you can go in your own
mind. You know that nothing is really forbidden to you, and that
prohibitions invented and enforced by others are worthy of contempt at
worst and the glancing respect afforded to a significant obstacle at best.
You know that you have attracted the attentions of higher powers, that you
are watched with interest, that your next move must simultaneously surprise
them and justify their expectations of you. You know that you can be
harder, leaner, more ascetic, more self-remitting than others; that you can
out-bid them in sacrifical exchange as in shows of force. You know what you
know, and you only deny it because you believe that doing so will make you
morally righteous; but moral righteousness is really just plain old
superiority with a string of unnecessary qualifications.
You...you...you...
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:11:24 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I think my work is unnoticed; there`s just so damn much of it...
The discussion is usually elsewhere; this is a very old list and people
are used to my writing (or immune to it as the case may be) -
- Alan
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Wendlyn Alter wrote:
> >If it is offensive or thought provoking, then it may just be
> >successful, in fact.
>
> <g> glad to have served as such as successful audience!
>
> Good thing you get fresh blood in from time to time, no? Without me,
> Alan`s work would pass with no notice whatsoever.
>
> >From my point of view, YOU are all unduly sensitive and serious. Why
> so afraid of a stimulating challenge? Don`t you enjoy a lively
> discussion? Isn`t that what Cybermind is for?
>
> --Wendlyn
>
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:43:30 +1200
From: Peter Fogarty
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
>I believe telling stories that stimulate sexual response by
>emphasizing the other`s helplessness and unwillingness perpetuates
>exactly the kind of mentality that allows governments and
>multinationals to rape the environment. It`s all about POWER OVER,
>depriving the other of quality of life, solely for one`s OWN pleasure
>and benefit. As long as Power Over is portrayed as attractive, then
>we`ll never make the kind of fundamental change in cultural mindset
>that will allow us to devise a new, kind, responsible, mutual way of
>living in the world.
I have been following this thread with half an eye, and it seems that
Wendlyn`s point in this paragraph above is what the original piece was
about; behind the issues of race, erotica and power.
It exemplifies how things are today, and if you are blind to this reality, I
suggest you explore the allegory of this piece, explore the politics it
exposes, explore the humanity it exposes [or lack of], and come to realise
that Dubya is indeed highly dangerous to the earth. In my opinion, he is the
catalyst for world change, pole shift and consciousness raising. anyone else
ready for the fourth dimension? coz the third dimension has had it.
; p
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:14:10 -0400
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Seduction
Re: hysteria - perhaps I`m thinking of "male hysteria" specifically, as one
of a series of male gendered pathologies: male masochism, male menopause
etc. But this would need more work.
It`s hard to stay put politically when the alliances already in place are
so warped...
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:07:21 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Seduction
It seems to me that these are all overdetermined; I do hold with Deleuze`s
work on masochism/sadism, but then that was maybe 20 years ago; I`m hope-
lessly behind the time...
Alan
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Dominic Fox wrote:
> Re: hysteria - perhaps I`m thinking of "male hysteria" specifically, as one
> of a series of male gendered pathologies: male masochism, male menopause
> etc. But this would need more work.
>
> It`s hard to stay put politically when the alliances already in place are
> so warped...
>
****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:13:47 -0600
From: Gordon Rumson
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Greetings,
> I think my work is unnoticed;
Not true. It's noticed and appreciated here!
All best wishes,
Gordon Rumson
Pianist and composer
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 04:17:00 -0400
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Seduction
There's a kind of male literary masochism, if it can still be called that,
in the lyric from at least Sidney onwards; I've argued that it's readable
as an attempt to circumvent a kind of erotic dead-end that arises within
lyric subjectivity. Only by being dispossessed, or feigning dispossession,
can the lyric voice in secure possession of itself get beyond solipsistic
confinement: it's an attempt to open up a kind of dialogue, although in
fact this always gets caught up in a narcissistic return (Derrida says
somewhere that one needn't be melancholic about this: a relation to the
other without this return would go nowhere fast, haemmorrhaging into the
void. There are narcissisms and narcissisms, he says). I still haven't read
Deleuze, but I wonder whether this (or something not unlike it) isn't the
masochism he's talking about...
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:36:35 +0300
From: Kathryn Koromilas
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
my few euros worth -
on pornography:
i don't think that the difference between pornography and erotica is one of
consent. i think the difference is that, well, sometimes you just fuck and
othertimes you make lurrve. pornography (the regular version you get at the
video store or newsstand) is not rape, after all, i think people still get
paid for doing that?
on getting turned on:
First of all, lets forget the stereotype that only men get off on rape,
"Power Over" and other forms of violence. Some men might, then again, some
women might. I know many a female (and male) submissive who likes playing
the slave to her dominant partner, or on the other hand, playing dominant.
What gives men hard-ons is complex. What turns women on is even more
problematic since we live in a post-feminist world where a bit of submission
in bed (or any other power play) is so loaded and always deemed
oppression.
But sometimes, you just want to be tied up and helpless have a great time in
bed and then get dressed, and get back to your great job (while you partner
cooks for you). If we all agree that when mutual consent is present in a
relationship (that is full of trust and respect) what turns someone on can
take all forms, and all be safe and sane.
on art being transformative:
As for art being transformative. I think the transformation happens on the
part of the viewer (reader) of the art (story). The artist doesn't always
create something in order to transform those who receive the art. That job I
think is held for priests (?), parents and teachers. These people (ideally)
teach a thing called critical thinking to children who then grow up and
receive art in a critical way. They grow up and can (ideally) receive a
story, painting, song and be able to say, I like this because..., this
disturbs me because..., I am transformed because...
Moreover, George Steiner says some interesting things. That high (and
responsible) art does not make a society better. If my memory serves me, he
once used an example of a Nazi official listening to Chopin in the evening
and in the day doing horrific things to prisoners. Chopin didn't transform
this Nazi into a kind sensitive soul.
as for the poor little helpless slavegirl:
Look both women and men are responsible for the plight of any girl (or boy)
who ends up in a situation to which she (or he) did not consent. Both women
and men have built up the society in which we live. Mothers dress girls in
pretty pink and teach them to be polite and weak and the same mothers dress
boys in blue and teach them to be strong. Of course, there are mothers and
fathers who also teach equality by their own example in the household. In
order to live better, we, even as "victims" need to take responsibility,
take ownership of what happens to us.
When we do not consent to something and someone goes right on ahead and
violates us, it is not a very nice thing. And that is where the law courts
come into the scene, and not the writers and artists. No one can deny the
power of art to influence, but it only has power to influence if we allow it
to. The novel "American Psycho" was found in the home of a mass murderer in
Sydney a while back. I read "American Psycho" and I still haven't killed
anyone. I also read the Marquis de Sade, I haven't humiliated or violated
anyone. On the other hand I've read the Bible and I'm an atheist. But then
again, I've read Paulo Coelho and have been quite influenced, and he is
Catholic.
A PC form of censorship won't do the trick though. What will do the trick is
long term education, building critical minds. Allowing ourselves to be
jolted by art, to be sickened even, hey it is better than being bored.
kk
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 04:57:41 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I like everything you said K^2, I'll be your yes man anyday!
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:34:49 +0300
From: Kathryn Koromilas
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> I like everything you said K^2, I'll be your yes man anyday!
haha! ok now, get down on yer...(whoops, getting carried away...)
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:27:13 -0300
From: Rose Mulvale
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Alan - after nearly seven years, I'm still reading your work. And if it's
any comfort, I'm learning. It opens my eyes - sharpens my perceptions,
generally speaking. Put simply: I enjoy it. - Rose
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Sondheim"
To: <CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> I think my work is unnoticed; there's just so damn much of it...
>
> The discussion is usually elsewhere; this is a very old list and people
> are used to my writing (or immune to it as the case may be) -
>
> - Alan
>
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:17:58 -0400
From: Mike Gorecki
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
How about a rebuttal -- Why a slave *girl*, and not a slave *boy*? The type
of story should be able to be portrayed in either sex, unless it really is
suppose to relate _only to_ women?
Michael J. C. Gorecki Lead Developer/MCSD/MCP+I
"The 21st century is plum for Techo-Jihad."
http://calendar.yahoo.com/public/mjgorecki
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:37:15 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Ah, Kathryn! A reasoned response! How refreshing!
>on pornography:
>i don't think that the difference between pornography and erotica is one of
>consent. i think the difference is that, well, sometimes you just fuck and
>othertimes you make lurrve. pornography (the regular version you get at the
>video store or newsstand) is not rape, after all, i think people still get
>paid for doing that?
As I said in my earlier post, this type of erotica doesn't bother me
at all. In fact I view it as a form of divine worship. But that's
another subject.
>I know many a female (and male) submissive who likes playing
So do I. The difference is, they are consenting to this play. All of
the BDSM practitioners I know use certain rules and standards to
maintain control even while playing the submissive role.
>If we all agree that when mutual consent is present in a
>relationship (that is full of trust and respect) what turns someone on can
>take all forms, and all be safe and sane.
Just so.
>As for art being transformative. I think the transformation happens on the
>part of the viewer (reader) of the art (story). The artist doesn't always
>create something in order to transform those who receive the art. That job I
>think is held for priests (?), parents and teachers.
A fascinating topic, which deserves separate attention. I believe that
artists ARE priests, the true priests.
An artist may not, in fact mostly does not, create deliberately to
induce transformation in others. The artist/priest enters the presence
of the divine and allows himself to be transformed, possessed,
resulting spontaneously in a work of art that serves as a template,
allowing others to follow after and be transformed similarly. Of
course not all viewers are capable of following.
Some transformations take one into the hell realms. It's a great
responsibility and heavy karma on an artist who creates transforms
that lead people into hell realms. I know that hell realms are
important in the divine scheme of things, and that some people need to
spend time there. I'm just saying an artist should be very careful
about transforming people into the hell realms, because that's a very
heavy karma. He's responsible for the people he sends there.
>Both women
>and men have built up the society in which we live. Mothers dress girls in
>pretty pink and teach them to be polite and weak and the same mothers dress
>boys in blue and teach them to be strong.
Yes! I agree fervently. We women MUST take the responsibility, in
fact MOST of the responsibility. That's why I've made a pact with
myself, as I grow older, to STOP teaching and modeling weakness to
women, and start speaking out strongly where I think weakness is being
propagated, as in the current discussion. Silly accusations of 'PC'
against a woman who elects to model strength are laughable and
harmless. Anyone who would be stopped by that truly IS weak.
>When we do not consent to something and someone goes right on ahead and
>violates us, it is not a very nice thing. And that is where the law courts
>come into the scene, and not the writers and artists. No one can deny the
>power of art to influence, but it only has power to influence if we allow it
>to. The novel "American Psycho" was found in the home of a mass murderer in
>Sydney a while back. I read "American Psycho" and I still haven't killed
>anyone. I also read the Marquis de Sade, I haven't humiliated or violated
>anyone. On the other hand I've read the Bible and I'm an atheist. But then
>again, I've read Paulo Coelho and have been quite influenced, and he is
>Catholic.
<g> Yes, isn't it interesting how and what succeeds in influencing us?
What an interesting study - what works, and on whom? What complex of
influences must converge before someone IS motivated by a given book;
what particular elements may be present or absent in someone else so
that the same book fails to influence them?
It's useless to deny that people are highly influenced by what's
imposed on their eyes and ears. If it weren't so, American advertising
would not be a multibillion dollar industry. (Of course, no one here
on CM is the LEAST bit influenced by ANY form of advertising, but
obviously we're a tiny superior elite minority! <g>) You know the ad
industry sinks untold millions into understanding how the mind works,
how we learn, how things are imprinted on our brain, what makes us
susceptible to suggestion. To deny that it's effective is just silly.
Huge amounts of money are being made by people who know it DOES work.
I've always been very skeptical, very unsusceptible to hero-worship,
not a follower of gurus or religions, challenging every attempt at
imposing beliefs on me. I've always been very proud of that, very
cocky. Then I fell into (love and hence) the power of one who had a
masterful knowledge of mind control techniques. A brilliant and
exciting mind, he absorbed the deadly meme during his own 8 years
inside a powerful mind-control cult. Over the course of two years I
was skillfully reduced to a quivering jelly, terrified of having a
thought of my own. How could I, of ALL people, have been brought to
that point? I nearly didn't get out of the situation alive. It has
taken me another four years of study to learn how he got control of me
against my will. A great deal is known on this subject. It has no
correlation to one's level of intelligence. (My lover, a genius and
maverick, was completely assimilated by the cult for many years.) It
can happen to anyone who is overly confident of their invulnerability.
If it hasn't happened to you, if you haven't studied these techniques,
don't assume you know it could NOT happen to you or anyone. It CAN and
DOES happen. I speak from experience.
We MUST be responsible, highly responsible, knowledgable and guarded.
>A PC form of censorship won't do the trick though. What will do the trick is
>long term education, building critical minds. Allowing ourselves to be
>jolted by art, to be sickened even, hey it is better than being bored.
I agree about education. That's why I stimulated this discussion.
Better than being bored? ...Funny. I can't remember ever being bored,
in my entire life. How can one possibly be bored? There are so MANY
unexplored territories, both exterior and interior...
--Wendlyn
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:45:39 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject Wet gray dream
Here`s a dream. My dream, just before awakening. Just a dream.
I`m in a small plane. A little prop plane. Part of a team, we have a
mission. We`re flying far out over the ocean. I`m in a side-car over
the wing, totally exposed. The ocean is gray, the air thick with soft
wet gray fog. Visibility is limited. We swoop low over the waves.
There`s a floating rescue station, other members of our team are
inside. I can see small boats, distantly scattered, barely visible in
the thick fog. We`re keeping a protective eye on them, on each other,
far, far from land. Each time we swoop low the spray breaks against
the tiny plane; I feel exhilarated. It`s terribly dangerous and I`m so
happy, so glad and proud to be here. I`m having a wonderful time.
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:41:34 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Wet gray dream
This is beautiful; meanwhile Azure dreamed there was a water-sprite in the
aquarium... Must be the moon, or here in NY, the odd weather we`re having
today -
Alan
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:28:36 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Seduction
Deleuze is clearer than most; I read the book years ago but he describes
two orders, the sadistic and masochistic, which are not in either opposi-
tion or dialectic, but to their own wildly different internals; it would
be worthwhile looking at it. Could you say more about this male literary
masochism? Does it play at all into oppression of women/the feminine?
Is their flight involved?
Alan
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Dominic Fox wrote:
> There's a kind of male literary masochism, if it can still be called that,
> in the lyric from at least Sidney onwards; I've argued that it's readable
> as an attempt to circumvent a kind of erotic dead-end that arises within
> lyric subjectivity. Only by being dispossessed, or feigning dispossession,
> can the lyric voice in secure possession of itself get beyond solipsistic
> confinement: it's an attempt to open up a kind of dialogue, although in
> fact this always gets caught up in a narcissistic return (Derrida says
> somewhere that one needn't be melancholic about this: a relation to the
> other without this return would go nowhere fast, haemmorrhaging into the
> void. There are narcissisms and narcissisms, he says). I still haven't read
> Deleuze, but I wonder whether this (or something not unlike it) isn't the
> masochism he's talking about...
>
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:32:57 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I agree almost entirely with you here, but want to say also that in too
many societies it's the men who h/old the power by sheer brutality. I
think that the Taliban/Afghanistanian situation is one terrible and
horrifying dream of all of us, just like Auschwitz was another. These dreams
raise their terrible might, and for some people, seduction; even the
courts and the law aren't immune. I am fearful here in the US for the
repeal of abortion laws, and what that might produce even further down the
line. And in Germany, I think of power at first, democratic power (such as
it was), eroding before anything else, before anyone noticed it, like the
brownshirts sitting in the theater at the end of Cabaret...
Alan
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:35:40 -0700
From: Sebastian Mendler
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I do believe she's gotten the point.
/ /skip
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Wendlyn Alter wrote:
> A black man in South Africa has been arrested by white officers.
>
> his rounded buttocks were in full view. was he available to all. he
> had given up all hope. now he was utterly distraught. now he belonged
> to everyone.
*****************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:44:16 +1100
From: Diane Powell 82 5201 - 0415 347 847
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Surely the issue is not that it's written but that it has been published,
unsolicited, and difficult for anyone on the list to avoid,whether they
have baggage, trauma or what. You can think and write what you fucking
like but I don't want it thrown in my face you offensive prick.
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:59:08 -0500
From: wisdom's aspirant
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
What resource would you recommend for studying these techniques?
It sounds fascinating.
Deanna
athena@brooksdata.net
wisdom's aspirant
child of earth
daughter of time
>If it hasn't happened to you, if you haven't studied these techniques,
>don't assume you know it could NOT happen to you or anyone. It CAN and
>DOES happen. I speak from experience.
>
>We MUST be responsible, highly responsible, knowledgable and guarded.
>
>--Wendlyn
>
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:19:03 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Then get off my fucking list - or I'll do it for you.
When it gets to a level of insult like this, I don't need to keep this
space running for you.
Alan
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Diane Powell 82 5201 - 0415 347 847 wrote:
> Surely the issue is not that it's written but that it has been published,
> unsolicited, and difficult for anyone on the list to avoid,whether they
> have baggage, trauma or what. You can think and write what you fucking
> like but I don't want it thrown in my face you offensive prick.
>
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:07:54 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (FOR DIANE)
Take your baggage elsewhere.
This happens to be Alan Sondheim's list; as such, he can say WHATEVER the
hell he wants.
Alan Sondheim is an artist.
Artist's often offend.
Shock.
Titillate.
Arouse.
Destroy.
Create.
You fuck off, you offensive bitch, who are you to tell him he is the prick?
You signed up for his email list, you can ALWAYS unsubscribe. Don't go
telling him to fuck off, if you are going to lurk on his list.
Now, get the hell out of here.
We don't like your kind.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane Powell 82 5201 - 0415 347 847"
To: <CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> Surely the issue is not that it's written but that it has been published,
> unsolicited, and difficult for anyone on the list to avoid,whether they
> have baggage, trauma or what. You can think and write what you fucking
> like but I don't want it thrown in my face you offensive prick.
>
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:21:46 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (FOR DIANE)
I took Diane off the list. I'm not going to put my energy into running
this to be insulted.
I apologize if this action has bothered anyone; it happens only about once
every two years or so -
Alan
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, dstreever wrote:
> Take your baggage elsewhere.
>
> This happens to be Alan Sondheim's list; as such, he can say WHATEVER the
> hell he wants.
>
> Alan Sondheim is an artist.
>[[snip]]
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:11:18 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Really, I apologize for my vulgarity, but you are exhibiting the HEIGHT of
rudeness.... this DOES happen to be HIS list, and if you don't like that,
you should have read his Texts before you ever joined.
Really, you are just too much, I do not understand how anyone could be so
ignorant and ultimately rude! You sign up for a list, you decide you don't
like it, you LEAVE. You don't tell the list owner that HE is a prick because
you don't like his text....
Do you walk into a restaurant, get a free meal, then cuss out the cook?
Also, why do you have to be so vulgar? I wouldn't have sworn at you unless
you didn't start it, which is a lame excuse, but a valid one in this case.
Do you walk around spouting such nastiness in your day to day life? I think
that might be your problem.
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:13:06 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Oddly enough, I sent the offensive message first, in anger, yet it appeared
second?
I hope this clears up that confusion.
*****************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:48:15 +1000
From: sedona
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (FOR DIANE)
Good on Ya Alan! Well done:) Tee hee hee I've been following all this but
got a deadline for my Psych Thesis - and maxed out.
Best Regards Elita
Yesterday is a cancelled cheque; tomorrow is a promissory note; today
is the only cash you have - so spend it wisely
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:18:27 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (FOR DIANE)
Whew. I'm duly chastened.
Will carefully censor myself from now on to avoid a similar fate. Too bad,
not what I'd hoped for... but now the rules have been made clear, I will
abide by them. I'm finally learning who's permitted to be vulgar, who's
not; who may be safely criticized or teased, and who's too sensitive...
It DOES take a while for newbies, this list has many complex unwritten
rules.
Alan, thanks for the link to your archives. I'm sampling at random and have
a long way to go - you've been incredibly prolific! - but have found them
rich and enlightening. I think I see more now about where this
controversial piece fits in and am more sympatico. Looking forward to
moredelving.
Hope you all will be willing to take the time to learn my stories as well,
before leaping to conclusions. They're pretty rich too, some are well worth
hearing. As are many others here, I'm sure.
Tomorrow I'm back to work after recuperating from surgery so won't be
nearly as loquacious in the future. Thought y'all would be glad to hear
that! :-)
--Wendlyn
*****************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:26:24 +0800
From: Lynne Harding
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (FOR DIANE)
Alan,
I am *really* hurt that you took this woman off the list when what she
had to say was mild in comparison to the way David Streever has been
continually hectoring and bullying anyone who dares to disagree with you
(him).
DStreever even admitted that he was the first to begin swearing, no I
don't advocate removing him too, despite his overbearing behaviour.
Remember freedom of speech?
Quite honestly Alan, I really thought more highly of *you*.
BTW this whole thread has had me watching in morbid fascination - this
is the stuff that people were all too polite to show up in the gender
discussion.
Here I see it being acted out in front of me. Its amazing how the
statistics become real.
Lynne <saddened>
>>> alan sondheim 04/10/01 10:21am >>>
I took Diane off the list. I'm not going to put my energy into running
this to be insulted.
I apologize if this action has bothered anyone; it happens only about
once every two years or so -
Alan
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 23:40:41 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (FOR DIANE)
No one's asking you to censor yourself; what Diane (I don't know her) did
was of another order - Michael Current and I decided years ago that we
wouldn't let flames on the list. Someone can attack my ideas and I may
fight back as neurotically as the next - but ad hominem or feminem is
another matter altogether. And as I've said, this almost never happens;
people here are pretty respectful -
Alan
*****************
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 23:49:49 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (FOR DIANE)
If someone starts calling me names, I'm not going to sit there and respond
in kind. I also feel that a certain amount of civility is necessary for
this or any other list to run. Calling me a prick would be just as bad as
if I called someone a cunt here and just let it flow.
I'm sorry you're really hurt; I was really hurt in fact by her attack -
which was nothing but a flame - and I don't think anyone has the right to
expect me to put up with this.
It's one thing to swear - it's another to create a direct attack like
that.
I'm sorry you no longer think highly of me; that's for you to decide of
course, just as your post affects how I think of you.
As far as "How the statistics become real" - I think this may be the first
time a woman has been unsubbed. It has almost always beem males (maybe
about 15 in the course of the list.
Finally, I think any one of you should try running a list like this for
years and years gratis - and then I would respect your decisions to allow
attacks like that. The whole Poetics list went to moderation over
something like that years ago; the moderator at the time was just tired of
personal flames against him. (And yes, he had unsubbed a great number of
people.) We are still open.
Just a little more and then I'll shut up - when Michael and I started C.
(he's dead now for those who don't know) we thought about elists in gen-
eral and agreed that to be on a list, any list, was a privilege, not a
right - it's like being in a livingroom or bar, whatever. And if you get
too insulting, you don't have a natural right to stay there and do what
you want. And we wanted to eliminate the flaming and potential racisms
etc. that might occur on any list, and said so at the time (in the info
sheet - I'm not sure that's even in existence any more).
So just to reiterate - if someone wants to get on and scream dumb fuck
dumb fuck or whatever at me or any other list member, I don't want to run
the list, etc. (And maybe in fact I should give up co-moderation now -
I've done this for close to 8 years now.) I don't expect any thanks or any
special consideration - but I won't ever work for a situation where I'm
going to be targeted in the manner Diane did.
And if you don't see her post as violent oppressive sexism, we don't see
eye to eye on that either.
Alan
*****************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:26:53 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: co-moderation
I just did realize - this is near the beginning of the 8th year.
Michael Current died about 3 months after we started. There have been a
number of co-moderators since then.
I am thinking of leaving the co-moderation position myself - if anyone
-
someone familiar with the list over at least 2 years or more - wants to
take my position over, that would be good. I feel overworked - and quite
honestly would rather be in a position to act freely, flame back, if I
want.
The co-moderation position involves very little - basically answering
sub/unsub questions, moving the list if it comes to that, advertising it on
occasion, and participating in the AOL List-Owner's list. You would also
have to have the password to the header - and then could configure things
the way you want.
I would ask that you keep the list unmoderated.
At the moment, and for a long time, Caitlin Martin has been doing the
error messages, a job which at times is not inconsiderable. I assume she
would continue in this capacity, at least for now.
I would continue co-moderation of Cyberculture (which I'd like to build
up, along with Frank Schaap), as well as Wryting (ditto with Ryan Whyte).
For better or worse, I'd continue to send my work here, as well as for-
wards that seem relevant to me. (Although someone else could take that
latter over as well.)
I ask that all discussion about this - i.e if you are interested in doing
this - occur backchannel; if we do get a new co-moderator (along with
Caitlin), I will of course announce it.
Thanks, Alan
*****************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:31:56 +0800
From: Lynne Harding
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (FOR DIANE)
Hi Alan,
I really do understand that having someone call you names is
unpleasant. I guess that I assumed there maybe a behaviourial warning to unruly
people before unsubbing took place.
My confusion over this was highlighted by the fact that one of the
offending parties were unsubbed while another, who responded with equal
heat, has not even had a warning - that I am aware of. Calling a woman a
bitch (as David did) is, to my mind, every bit as unnecsssary as the
kind of language Diane used. I guess much of my original point was
about the consistent application of rules for all.
As far as "no longer thinking highly of you" I believe that occasional
disappointments are allowed in any kind of relationship? These ebb and
flow as people continue to communicate and grow in understanding - with
one another or with a community. There were no absolutes implied in
that remark, simply sharing my feelings with you at the moment (which
implies a kind of trust anyhow). Isn't discussion about these kinds of
things precisely how acquaintances get cemented, and grow to friendships?
Unsubbing of women vs men was not really what I was referring to when I
mentioned statistics -lack of clarity on my part there. I was actually
referring to studies by Sandra Herring, Gladys We and Dale Spender to
name a few on the "who speaks, who gets heard" dynamic in gendered
communication.
Jon's site has references there.
As far as moderating a list goes - well I know my own technical
shortcomings only too well!
Finally I agree with you that being on a list is a privilege, like a
living room or bar. It seems to me though that the landlord would
normally give an offensive patron a warning... they may not completely
understand the rules of the bar?
*Contextually*, no I didn't think Diane was guilty of oppressive
sexism. She sounded as if she was very passionate when she wrote what she did
- but that is all. I am not trying to defend her language - anymore
that I am trying to defend David Streevers equally intense language.
with appreciation of the list
Lynne
*****************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:57:18 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (FOR DIANE)
To be honest, I missed David's reply using the word "bitch" - but that
also is uncalled for. I also do understand that my work creates an
atmosphere at times of fairly strong con or pro.
I didn't feel, honestly, that there was any space to warn her - and I
think (without knowing in fact) that a warning would have just been more
fuel. That happened before, years and years ago; and the list gets caught
up in the full frontal play of things.
I'm not sure what else to say - for a lot of (mainly offline) reasons I'm
feeling worn-out, and maybe it would be good for someone to take over!
I found myself thinking, if everyone who had been on the list had sent me,
since the beginning, $2 a year, I would have made over $5000! And
obviously that kind of thinking is as offensive as any other, and makes
me realize that someone else might bring new blood to the list.
Moderation isn't really technical, by the way - it doesn't require
programming, just using email smartly and reading, on occasion, the
listserv manual which can be endless. At one point a month ago I had to
change the header (to open up the number of messages per day per
subscriber) and it accidently got "locked" - which meant that no one
could
post to the list! And I couldn't figure it out - what the command was -
I kept rereading ad nauseum. I finally wrote Caitlin who said it was
"freecybermind" - which I should have remembered. But these things are
fairly rare.
Alan
*****************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:37:41 -0700
From: jonathan marshall
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Probably i should leave things alone, but i have to
write mail offline and sometimes am out of date..
If I can be a little abstract: to me it seems that
people are assuming they can easily decide on the
internal states of others through reading texts, that
other people should be able to discover their internal
states through being read, and that a text should mean
what the author intends it to mean.
Texts, are probably always going to escape their
authors intentions, and the possibly increases the
more the text is 'poetic' or symbollic and without
gloss.
As such, it seems to me that Wendlyn's points are
points that are worth raising (and i thought Dianne
was replying to Tom as she used phrases which i
thought were his), they are not points about Alan, as
such (as far as I can see, and we can assume for other
reasons that 'sexism' is not a fault here) but points
about the ways that a text can be interpreted, and the
likely ways that a text can be read.
Indeed, though it was not surprising to see the motive
of 'free speech' being used to surpress discussion of
some particular speech, I was a little surprised to
see the Political correctness 'meme' being used.
Though this is typical of Righteous discourse - you
are worrying about pollution, stop being pc, you are
worried about increasing poverty, stop being pc, you
are worried about racisim stop being pc, you are
worried about sexism stop being pc etc etcetc - it is
not usual here. After all 'offense' is a matter of
interpretation, and as such if someone is disturbed
then this issue would be expected to be considered -
whether it is an issue of racism or sexism or abuse or
whatever. And i'm not in favour of abuse, but it is
sometimes a little difiicult to see why some
statements count as abuse and others don't. Eventually
you may decided that these objections are not
objections that you can take much head of, but that is
not the same as dismissing them out of hand. In
anthropology these kind of objections to our work come
up continually, and it is customary to try and learn
something from them about the way people are likely to
receive your work...
Personally, I'm not sure that the idiom of
sado-masochism is really the ideal idiom for
investigating issues of politics or racism or
whatever, because it tends to dignify the domination
as mutual and as agreed and as embraced by the subs
with joy. especially if there is no inversion -
possibly a story about male masochism and female
dominance might be subversive.... To go a long way
into the past, this seemed to me to be why films that
were often considered radical like "Swept Away" or
"The Night Porter" were problematic because they
implied that women or jewish people sought, embraced
and enjoyed their destruction, though i don't think
that was the intention of those films...
The issue of violence and women perhaps should not be
put aside. Yesterday the results of a survey of
Australian children was released. One in four claimed
to have seen their mothers being assaulted.
jon
*****************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:49:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Jon, I really don't want to carry this on forever; obviously I agree with
you about issues re: violence against women. If soneone wants to use
models of masochism or sadism to investigate oppression - I would ask,
which models? What psychoanalysis? Why would one repress any modles? To
bring up the Night Porter I think is specious; I could just as easily
bring up Gilman's Jewish Self-Hatred in return.
But Diane's attack was ad hominem - it was name-calling, whatever
routes it had. It has nothing to do with pc or not pc, at least as I
understand pc, and my work or a lot of the work or discussion on this list is
hardly pc. I don't believe for a second though that flames and name-calling
have no effect; they do, and it's real, and concrete - and if someone called
someone else a kike or nigger or whatever here, that also would be
grounds to leave. In fact, several years ago as you may know, this did happen
with someone trolling about "Hebrews" and he or she was immediately taken
off and this was with general agreement among the co-moderators.
Alan
Onto Part 3