Discussion about a text: Part 4
Back to Part 3
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:34:27 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Fw: Miss Powell
This I recieved. My letter to her was quite civil, and also very polite and
apologetic... I can forward that as well, if you'd all like.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane Powell "
To: "dstreever"
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:23 PM
Subject: RE: Miss Powell
> I have been endeavouring to unsubscribe from this list for days to no
> avail, please take me OFF. And if financially supporting something gives
> you the right to offend a large number of subscribers there seems to be a
> conflict of interest and a BIG ETHICAL PROBLEM WITH YOUR GROUP.
>
> If he thinks he has been insulted he should step into my shoes and thoseof
> all of the women. his behaviour is just like a man exposing himself on the
> street and I don't want his rudeness in my face. good riddance to BAD
> PHILOSOPHERS. WHAT A JOKE YOU ALLL ARE!
*************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:18:46 -0700
From: jonathan marshall
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
the beauty of the term is that it is in general only
ever applied to the left - as we all know the right
are never authoritarian :)
i once read somewhere, in the paranoid mode, that the
term was invented by a rightist committee under Reagan
as part of their strategy to invalidate all social
reform movements. Of course this isn't true either...
jon
--- Alan Sondheim wrote:
> In the states it's also used to refer to groups that
> push for changes and
> legislation in a highly autoritarian way. - Alan
*************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:39:23 -0700
From: jonathan marshall
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
just to shift things back to communication, i wonder
how much of the recent heat was affected by the
strange arrival of mails.
As people might remember i can't get mail from
listserv at my real address, and at yahoo i only knew
about some mails, because they were quoted by others,
Alan missed some mails and his mail to Dianne bounced,
Lynne got the order of some mails wrong, david
received his mails in reverse order, and i think a few
other people also wrote implying this kind of thing.
All of these occurances change the reading of what
happened and so on, and would affect the way people
behaved, because of course order is important in
conversation. here some responses were received before
the things they were responding to..
jon
*************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:44:26 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: My books that you don't like
>If I don't like your books that much, I should just stay out.
<smile> Or alternatively, we might light a fire in the fireplace, sit and
share a bottle of wine and have a stimulating talk until far into the night
about books, why we feel as we do, what our personal philosophies are and
how curiously we differ. We might each entertain all sorts of new ways of
thinking and end up feeling we'd spent a very worthwhile evening together.
Just another possible approach.
--Wendlyn
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:01:06 +0800
From: Lynne Harding
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Yes PC does seem to be that now - which is sad because when it began
being used it was to open up thinking and awareness about "normal" and
how that was constructed. Sadly it has turned the postie into the
Mailperson.
It was certainly never intended to be used in the restrictive sense of
"you are being so PC" with an attendant subtext for PC as equaling
"boring".
Its been a really clever spin to turn it into something that actually
stops thinking, even represses it. The function of the phrase (if not
the phrase itself) can still be used with awareness of course. It can
still can perform its original function - as an invitation to "wake up
and think big".
Lynne
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:45:08 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I think it does the opposite, actually - that it masks ideology and is
incredibly loaded. "Correctness" of any sort - with its emphasis on
classical two-valued logic - is problematic - as is "political" - what
constitutes politics or a politics? These aren't idle (but are idol)
questions; Nazis, for example thought they were politically correct - and
once that is accepted, then one has to look deeper into the apparatus of
ideology and its pervasiveness; Althusser comes to mind here.
PC almost always, as far as I've seen, fostered an atmosphere of intoler-
ance, albeit a different intolerance. It wasn't dialogic or dialectical;
and in fact it would censor as much as accept.
I would go so far as to say that PC _has no inherent relation_ to fighting
sexism or racism, etc. - that that is a choice made contiguously to the
ideological apparatus itself. And in that contiguity a real politics lies
- which has been a terrible terrible shame.
Alan
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Lynne Harding wrote:
> Yes PC does seem to be that now - which is sad because when it began
being used it was to open up thinking and awareness about "normal" and
how that was constructed. Sadly it has turned the postie into the
Mailperson.
>
> It was certainly never intended to be used in the restrictive sense
of "you are being so PC" with an attendant subtext for PC as equaling
"boring".
>
> Its been a really clever spin to turn it into something that actually
stops thinking, even represses it. The function of the phrase (if not
the phrase itself) can still be used with awareness of course. It can
still can perform its original function - as an invitation to "wake up
and think big".
>
> Lynne
>
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:15:26 +0300
From: Markku Nivalainen
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> pc stands for 'politically correct'
>
> As far as I can see it is mostly used by people who perceive an unfair
> demand to use not so offensive language (afro-amarican intead of nigger).
But it doesn't rhyme with hypocrite. ;-)
mn
*************
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:42:47 -0700
From: Seth Johnson
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Now, wait. It didn't exist before I went to college in the 80's.
It really is very sophisticated. It cemented the pinko-baiting
supply-side "theory" by characterizing policies and analyses that sought
to address systemic concerns as arrogant impositions on individuals.
I remember that at the time, the effect of the term could have been
thwarted if only the simple counter-position "Well, it's true we don't
think we're politically *in*correct" had been put out by all the
universities.
The term was specifically trotted out to keep the voice of academia
shut.
jonathan marshall wrote:
>
> i once read somewhere, in the paranoid mode, that the
> term was invented by a rightist committee under Reagan
> as part of their strategy to invalidate all social
> reform movements. Of course this isn't true either...
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:06:46 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Seth Johnson wrote:
I don't want to name institutions or people, but re: the first paragraph
below - in fact there _are_ cops of political correctness, however you
want to define it, in current institutions. It's not a question of
standing up for principles - it's a question of out-and-out
enforcement.
At one university I taught at, a large number of the faculty tried to
create a decency committee for the student art department - to determine
whether particular works were allowed to be exhibited - even for discus-
sion within the art department. They were directly concerned that the work
would be inappropriate. I can also talk about publicly-funded galleries I
have worked for along these lines. It has always been a fight for freedom
of expression, both within and without the institution, for the past fif-
teen or so years - and that's not much different from McCarthyism, even
though the targets are radically different.
I've gotten in troubles in various schools defending students - to feel
that these issues are real and current. Yes, PC was an anterior term, and
yes, tremendous corrections needed to be made. But one authoritarianism
all too often replaces another.
Alan
> Anyway. Calling people cops of political correctness, or "old hat" in
> their political correctness, is a strategy specifically targetted
> against the social theory orientation of those who were labelled with
> the term, who had been all along been simply standing up for certain
> principles that the Reagan era (and the times since) would never
> countenance.
>
> Particularly. the recognition of systemic forces (class and language,
> for instance) as valid concerns in social policy, is exactly what the PC
> label was designed to suppress.
>
> Seth Johnson
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:10:27 -0400
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Seduction
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:28:36 -0400, Alan Sondheim
wrote:
>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?
One thing about the masochistic order is that there is, somewhere, a sadist
in it; or rather, a plausible simulacrum of one. I'd want to say that
masochism and sadism trope or allegorize each other, that their assymmetry
or incommensurability is produced through a troping or perversion of the
other's identity (troping the other into an identity, assigning an identity
through misrecognition). The same thing goes for sexual difference,
though:
I think Zizek for instance finds in the "impossible couple" of sadist and
masochist an ingenious refiguration of the impossible hetero couple - so
that you could rewrite Lacan's "there is no sexual relation" as "there is
no sado-masochism". The point is not so much that masochism and sadism are
analogues of masculine and feminine gender roles, but that their inability
to form a stable dyad points to the Real of sexual difference.
In male literary masochism, what is striking is the woman's silence. She is
continually spoken for. She *does* a lot - scarring the suffering male poet
with wounding looks, undermining his resolve, attacking his heart with
siege engines - but *says* almost nothing. Her word is eagerly awaited. But
in Marvell's "To his coy mistress", "coy" - from quies, silent, quiescent -
is his word for her refusal, which he does not recognise as speech. "Say
you will, say you will" - "no, never; as I've told you a million times" -
"oh well, when you feel like talking to me, I'm always listening!"
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:23:24 -0700
From: Seth Johnson
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Well now, "being what is now called PC" never called itself PC. That
was later, during the Reagan administration.
At a time (before Reagan) when much political analysis based itself on
analyzing structures of authority, identifying the role that language
played in perpetuating social inequities was second nature.
This is why I found it horrendous how much people treated Debra Tanning
(sp?) and the He Said/She Said stuff as somehow new and brilliant
insight.
What was horrendous about all that was that long after we had recognized
the role of language in shaping identity and society, here was someone
trotting out an analysis of how men and women think and talk
differently, and it being used as evidence for the difference between
men and women, instead of more of the same old same old that people had
long been examining in social theory before the Reagan era, with an
entirely different understanding of the role of language.
Anyway. Calling people cops of political correctness, or "old hat" in
their political correctness, is a strategy specifically targetted
against the social theory orientation of those who were labelled with
the term, who had been all along been simply standing up for certain
principles that the Reagan era (and the times since) would never
countenance.
Particularly. the recognition of systemic forces (class and language,
for instance) as valid concerns in social policy, is exactly what the PC
label was designed to suppress.
Seth Johnson
Lynne Harding wrote:
>
> Yes PC does seem to be that now - which is sad because when it began
being used it was to open up thinking and awareness about "normal" and
how that was constructed. Sadly it has turned the postie into the
Mailperson.
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:47:44 -0300
From: Rose Mulvale
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Jim - I agree that lag might contribute here, but it strickes me that any
odd out-of-left-field response gives the reader pause - as, "What brought
that on?" which makes a touch of generosity not only possible, but
probable.
-r.
> just to shift things back to communication, i wonder
> how much of the recent heat was affected by the
> strange arrival of mails.
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:35:02 -0500
From: "Robert A. Kezelis"
Subject: Re: Apology
on 4/10/01 6:07 PM, dstreever wrote:
> Just to make it formal...
>
> I apologize to the entire list for my lack of decorum. I usually maintain a
> very civil attitude and professional manner, but I have a lot of respect for
> Alan Sondheim.
>
> Of course, I did not swear at Ms. Atler, nor would I have. Her attack was
> not a vicious, calculated, cruel assault on someone (personally) whose work
> I respect a great deal. Her critique was done without a potty mouth and
> directed at the WORK, which I can understand and sympathize with. Work is
> work; as much as I respect Alan's, I feel ALL work should be subjected to
> the critique Wendlyn put it through...
>
> I just can't abide with someone attacking someone else in their own "house",
> so to speak. Alan's job is a thankless one, for which I'd like to thank him
> now.
>
> In regrets,
>
> David
>
Dave, I had no idea that something of yours was being kept hostage - who
demanded a complete and total apology, reparations, and a Chinese meal for
three. :-)
I agree with your analysis, though. Alan is a unique asset, whose writings
never cease to amaze, amuse, bemuse, confuse and educate.
Happily enjoying my own deliberate semi-unemployment,
robert
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:35:25 +0400
From: "Dr. Salwa Ghaly"
Subject: pc
I certainly agree that political correctness masks ideology in a very
self-satisfied smug and, I must add, really dumb way. What it succeeds
in achieving is rendering some, not more tolerant, but more
hypocritical. It also drives all sorts of reactionary and
extreme right wing views underground, a
very unhealthy phenomenon that can backfire. Has anybody read _The
Shadow University_? Undermining people's right to free speech in the name
of political correctness as ideological orthodoxy is not only
objectionable on ehtical grounds but plain dangerous on
practical ones. In time, this pseudo
liberalism can only give rise to a more entrenched conservative
culture. Have we already started seeing a backlash?
Multiculturalism, with its superficial flirting with the Other and
encouragement of tokenism, is another related can of worms. While
appearing to (condescendingly) court this other, we, in effect, fan a form of
racism, and condemn this person to his/her condition as inappropriable and inassimilable
"foreigner" or "stranger" or outsider, a situation many vehemently
oppose.
Salwa
Alan Sondheim wrote:
> I think it does the opposite, actually - that it masks ideology and is
[[snip]]
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:40:47 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Doc, we aren't Canadian based this week, we're australian ;-)
Next week will go back to the Netherlands.
::Grin::
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:51:05 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Yes, this actually happened to meeee!
People thought I "fired the first shot" but it was certainly not I :-)
(Not the lovealbe, tree hugging pacifist that I am! No oh no!)
----- Original Message -----
From: "jonathan marshall"
To: <CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> just to shift things back to communication, i wonder
> how much of the recent heat was affected by the
> strange arrival of mails.
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:52:16 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: My books that you don't like
Hey, that'd work too, as long as I don't come in and cuss you out for your
taste ;-)
Hmmmm....
What type of wine might we be talking about?
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:32:48 -0400
From: Mike Gorecki
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Damn foreigners!!! :-)
------Original Message------
From: Esther Milne
To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Sent: April 11, 2001 12:44:38 AM GMT
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Just shows you what a complicated and contested term is 'pc'!! Doubtless
both Paddy McGuiness and oh, help me out here [searching for a high
profile [[snip]]
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:44:13 -0400
From: Mike Gorecki
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Is it not all just "1984" doublespeak? Like Pro-Family? Who would be
Anti-Family? Language gets peppered w/words & memes that server no other
purpose than for the person who "infected us" w/them to separate their
speech from the normal man/woman.
------Original Message------
From: Seth Johnson
To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Sent: April 11, 2001 9:23:24 AM GMT
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Well now, "being what is now called PC" never called itself PC. That
was later, during the Reagan administration. [[snip]]
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:04:59 +0200
From: Maurizio Mariotti
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Alas, all efforts over the years to keep this list free of Canadians
have failed.
On ne peut même pas écrire en Français, parce que
vraisemblablement ils le parlent tous. Et s'ils ne le parlent pas, il
demandent à Renata de traduire.
Anche in Italiano non funziona perché lo capiscono piuttosto bene.
Eh, Rosella?
C'est frustrant.
:-)
M
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:07:30 +0200
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
On 11 Apr 2001, at 16:04, Maurizio Mariotti wrote:
>
> C'est frustrant.
>
> :-)
>
arm arm Mauriziootje
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:08:44 -0700
From: Seth Johnson
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I wouldn't disagree with you at all. I'm just particularly concerned
about the genesis of the term and how it played in the "Republican
Revolution."
I hate to see people caught up in the term, simply because it's just
such a shame that where we were before that term was deployed,
acknowledged so much more. One would actually try to make sense of the
issues caught up in such "PC" showdowns -- entirely unlike the climate
these days.
That said, one of the deficiencies of even the time before Reaganism is
that social theory did tend to reduce to a kind of blind
antiauthoritarianism, which was better in my estimation than a lack
thereof, but which nevertheless meant that even those whose hearts were
in the right place were unprepared to resist the Reagan-era reduction of
policy questions to the supply- vs demand-side rubric.
Now we see "PC" cops way out of hand for a lot of reasons, across the
political spectrum. But that's because the society is so polarized. We
basically see strident identity politics versus strident morality
politics.
Seth Johnson
Alan Sondheim wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Seth Johnson wrote:
>
> I don't want to name institutions or people, but re: the first paragraph
> below - in fact there _are_ cops of political correctness, however you
[[snip]]
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:24:41 +0400
From: Salwa Ghaly
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Pourrais-je vous dire que vous etes tres amusant? Moins les accents?!
Salwa
-----Original Message-----
From: Maurizio Mariotti
To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Sent: 4/11/01 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Alas, all efforts over the years to keep this list free of Canadians
have failed. [[snip]]
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:40:07 -0400
From: Mike Gorecki
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Damn all these foreigners. You know where this world would be w/o
foreigners? Well, there would be no world ... but that is besides the
point... {;-)
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:57:03 -0300
From: Rose Mulvale
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Maurizio -
> Anche in Italiano non funziona perché lo capiscono piuttosto bene.
> Eh, Rosella?
Gimme a few weeks, here, Maurizio mio... I just found my CD again. (Anyone
else have the experience of being away from home for four months, only to
come home to find out that friends have been "helping"? ;-)
> C'est frustrant.
Tant pis!
- Rose
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:10:46 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I totally agree with you. I do like classic multiculturalist texts like
those of Gayatri Spivak, Trinh Minh-Ha, Gloria Anzuala - perhaps even
Alphonso Lingis, etc. They're incredibly generous and enriching; I
couldn't live without them...
Alan
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:15:47 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: pc
I do disagree about multiculturalism, which, at least to me (and I'm not
talking from an academic standpoint), isn't at all performative. And I
think it's an absolutely necessary corrective to the westernization of the
world - one can see Said's Orientalism as one of the first eye-opening
texts in this regard. Multiculturalism just doesn't seem prescriptive to
me; it seems inclusive - on the other hand, there may be an official canon
I'm not familiar with. I've read on and off in Buddhist and Chinese logic
for years, for example - and to me this plays into very open multicultural
concerns - but might be seen by others as to be beside the point.
Alan -
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:48:14 +0400
From: Salwa Ghaly
Subject: Re: pc
Alan,
I can't agree more about the value and timeliness of the postcolonial
project initiated by people like Said, Bhabha and Spivak and now being
expanded into much more exciting territory. I meant, however, the
self-serving, politically motivated "multiculturalism" that Zizek talks
about in _The Ticklish Subject_. I also have in mind Sleeper's "liberal
racism," as well as the kind of multicultural "openness" informing the worst
kinds of cultural relativist thinking that condones turning a blind eye
against blatant human rights abuses outside the Western world, a tactic
used, more often than not, curiously enough, when the victims are
women.
Does this make any sense?
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Sondheim
To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Sent: 4/11/01 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: pc
I do disagree about multiculturalism, which, at least to me (and I'm not
talking from an academic standpoint), isn't at all performative. And I
think it's an absolutely necessary corrective to the westernization of the
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:57:37 -0700
From: Sebastian Mendler
Subject: my def of PC
"PC" is a term applied by conservatives to liberals when liberals try to
become as moralistic as conservatives about something.
/ /skip
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:40:35 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: pc
This makes total sense. Could you possibly send a small updated
bibliography to the list? Of some of your favorite sources? It
would be a great help.
Thanks, Alan
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:48:57 -0700
From: Seth Johnson
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Alan Sondheim wrote:
>
> I totally agree with you. I do like classic multiculturalist texts like
> those of Gayatri Spivak
These deconstructionists are lost in a loop.
Derrida: Husserl's reduction of the grounds of all science to inward
insight in based on an appeal to the primacy of the principle of
presence, yet Husserl admits alterity into the primordial stratum in his
examination of the phenomenology of time-consciousness. So there's
gotta be a funky thang going on called differance, more primordial than
both (huh?).
Phenomenologists got all up in arms with him because he had about this
contradiction in Husserl, but then he doesn't address the fact that the
text he's reading (Husserl's Logical Investigations) is specifically
making the founding argument for establishing the foundation for all
science on inward insight. Derrida gets to have it both ways: He's the
bad boy, poking holes in humanistic social theoretic foundations; and
yet as long as Husserl's defender's are guarding the gates instead of
directly assessing what Derrida's contradiction really means for
Husserl, he gets to proffer all sort of themes that ultimately lean on
Husserl instead. He's really just saying "since we all like Husserl,
whatever strange thesis I offer to rectify the subjective idealist
reduction, must be true."
Seth Johnson
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:42:19 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Confused about this in relation to G.S. - her early trans. seems quite
different than her work on the subaltern, etc. - can you elaborate? I
don't think of G.S. as a deconstructionist, but I may be missing some-
thing - for that matter Derrida's later political work doesn't seem so
decon either - Alan
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Seth Johnson wrote:
> Alan Sondheim wrote:
> >
> > I totally agree with you. I do like classic multiculturalist texts like
> > those of Gayatri Spivak
>
> These deconstructionists are lost in a loop.
>
> Derrida: Husserl's reduction of the grounds of all science to inward
> insight in based on an appeal to the primacy of the principle of
> presence, yet Husserl admits alterity into the primordial stratum in his
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:12:33 -0400
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
SOUTHERN ROCK PROMOTER: I heard you boys got an album coming out.
DAVID: Yeah, it should be out now, it's called Smell the Glove...
yeah...yeah, yeah.... Extra: Smell the Glove? It's a provocative title.
DAVID: Wait till you see the cover, wait till you see the cover, very
provcative indeed.
IAN: BOBBI, BOBBI, can I tear you away from all of this?
BOBBI: Do you have a drink? Everything ok?
IAN: No, I don't, I don't really need one. But, listen, um...I really, I
really do have to talk to you a bit about this, uh....
BOBBI: IAN, come on, tell me whatever is on your mind....
IAN: ...this whole issue of the, uh...the issue of the cover.
BOBBI: Yeah.
IAN: ...uh, we feel, I mean, we feel and it seems to be facts that,
uh...the company is rather down on the cover. Is that the case?
BOBBI: Yes.
IAN: You can give it to me straight, you know.
BOBBI: Listen umm... they don't like the cover, they don't like the
cover.
IAN: Uh huh, well that is certainly straight.
BOBBI: They find it very offensive and very sexist.
IAN: Well what exactly...do you find offensive, I mean, what's
offensive?
BOBBI: IAN, you put a greased naked woman...
IAN: Yes...
BOBBI: ..on all fours...
IAN: Yes.
BOBBI: ...with a dog collar around her neck...
IAN: ...with a dog collar...
BOBBI: ...and a leash...
IAN: ...and a leash...
BOBBI: ...and a man's arm extended out up to here holding on to the leash
and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it. You don't find that
offensive, you don't find that sexist?
IAN: No I don't, this is 1982, BOBBI, come on.
BOBBI: That's right it's 1982 get out of the 60's we don't have this
mentality any more.
IAN: Well you shoulda seen the cover they wanted to do. It wasn't a
glove believe me.
BOBBI: I don't care what they wanted to do, now see this is something IAN
that you are going to have to talk to your boys about.
IAN: We're certainly not laying down any conditions...
BOBBI: And I don't think that a sexy cover is the answer for why an album
sells or doesn't sell becuase you tell me...the "White Album", what was
that? There was nothing on that goddamn cover. Excuse me, the phone's
ringing. IAN we'll talk about this after.
IAN: Okay, bye bye.
BOBBI: Hello. Oh, hi Dennis. Uh oh, okay. Why don't you tell him? Okay,
hold on one minute. IAN? It's Eaton-Hogg, he wants to talk to you.
IAN: Okay. Thank you darling.
BOBBI: You're welcome.....dear.
IAN: Hello SIR DENNIS. Hi, how are you? (out of phone) Oh, fucking old
poofdah! (into phone) But it's really not that offensive SIR DENNIS come
on. Okay. I'll call you absolutely first thing in the morning. (slam phone)
Ah, shit. They are not gonna release the album...because they have
decided that the cover is sexist.
NIGEL: Well so what? What's wrong with being sexy? I mean there's
no....
IAN: Sex-ist.
DAVID: -ist, not sexy.
BOBBI: Okay, listen I wanted to tell you this and and...I was holding back
because I didn't know what Dennis' decision was going to be... but at this
point both Sears and K-Mart stores have refused to handle the album.
They're boycotting the album only because of the cover. If the first
album had been a hit....
IAN: If the company is behind the album it can shove it right down
their throats.
BOBBI: Money talks and bullshit walks and if the first album was a hit
then we could have pressed on them then we could have told them yes...
IAN: The music....every cut on this album is a hit.
BOBBI: Let's...I don't give a shit what the album's....
NIGEL: It's a matter of compromise, we made a joke, and it was a long time
ago, they're making it like a big deal.
DAVID: That's true. You know, if we were serious and we said "yes she
should be forced to sniff...smell the glove" then you'd have a point you
know but it's all a joke, isn't it, we're making fun of that sort of
thing.
NIGEL: It is and it isn't, she should be made to smell it, but...
DAVID: But not you know over and over again.
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:33:20 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Usually they just change the cover.
I've had issues with a book I've got coming out, for other reasons, but
worries about the cover, who might and who might not carry it, etc.
Alan
*************
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:45:43 +1000
From: Esther Milne
Subject: Re: Fw: Miss Powell - David
Yes, David - since you offer it might make for a more 'balanced'
representation if you could forward to CM the email to which Diane Powell
quite vociferously replies. I'm not sure, btw, on the ethics of sending a
private mail to the list but that's done now so I think it would be 'even
things up' a bit if you could now send us your original email.
thanks,
Esther.
*************
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:46:44 +1000
From: Esther Milne
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
heh heh - good answer Dom; so good, in fact, that it goes up to 11.
Esther
At 07:12 PM 11/04/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>SOUTHERN ROCK PROMOTER: I heard you boys got an album coming out.
>
>DAVID: Yeah, it should be out now, it's called Smell the Glove...
>yeah...yeah, yeah.... Extra: Smell the Glove? It's a provocative title.
>
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:05:13 -0400
From: dpres
Subject: Re: back
A lot of sound and fury over nothing.
Tom Ellis wrote:
> back for the moment, so what did I miss <g>?
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:15:02 -0400
From: dpres
Re: back
the two main discussions appear to be slavegirl (which was a writing by
alan) which merged into a discussion on political correctness.
Tom Ellis wrote:
> back for the moment, so what did I miss <g>?
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:17:31 -0400
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: back
Ahhh, then nothing has changed. That is good, and bad ;)
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:57:43 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Fw: Miss Powell
HEADERS (for those who care) [[snip]]
------------------------------------------------->
From: "dstreever"
To: <powell.diane....>
Subject: Miss Powell
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:33:24 -0400
You have personally insulted Alan Sondheim, the writer of the text you so hate, who
happens to own and financially maintain this list you have insulted him on.
You do not see that as the height of rudeness, to personally and
vulgarly attack someone who is, in this case, your benefactor? You had no
right to call him a "prick", and I feel this is the height of rudeness on
your part.
He has unsubscribed you, which you rightfully should have done yourself.
If you didn't want to read things like that, you should not have ever
subscribed to his list; all of his texts were available for your perusal
beforehand.
Thank you, Ms. Powell, and my apologies for allowing myself to lose my temper.
David Streever
860 873 1370
162 Falls Road
Moodus, CT, 06469
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:46:37 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: My books that you don't like
>Hmmmm....
>
>What type of wine might we be talking about?
Tonight I'm not in a wine mood. How about a good single malt? Say,
Aberlour. Or better yet, Lagavulin?
--Wendlyn
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:49:34 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: My books that you don't like
The thought of pleasent, logical company for a night is more than enough,
Ms. Atler, but I'll gladly sample your Lagavulin.
Pleased to make your aquaintance.
I genuinely hope I do hate your books, or we might have to make small talk.
;-)
David
*************
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:52:34 -0700
From: Seth Johnson
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I think Derrida's feeling a little guilty about his ploy these days,
perhaps.
I don't know where I recently heard Gayatri billed as decon, but it
sounds to me as if you might be a good bit more in the know on the
point.
Seth Johnson
Alan Sondheim wrote:
>
> Confused about this in relation to G.S. - her early trans. seems quite
> different than her work on the subaltern, etc. - can you elaborate? I
> don't think of G.S. as a deconstructionist, but I may be missing some-
*************
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:18:22 +0400
From: Salwa Ghaly
Subject: Re: pc
Will put together a bibliography; just give me a few days.
A comment in response to Seth. Spivak's claim to fame as a
deconstructionist began, of course, with her translation of, and intro to
_On Grammatology_. She and Homi Bhabha as well as many of the postcolonial
critics regularly, but selectively, use deconstructionist reading strategies
when they deconstruct the Western literary and philosophical canons to probe
their underlying colonial and imperial assumptions. But, the reason why she
is considered to be first and foremost a "postcolonial," not decon, critic
is because she uses deconstruction in the service of a very "interested"
agenda. In other words, for her, decon criticism is a means to an end.
After a while, however, her moves become rather predictable, and this
renders her work somewhat repetitive and ... a tad tedious. But's a personal view.
On another note altogether different, you people don't seem to mind the
deluge of daily messages; but what happens when one has to go away for a few
days or a month, heaven forbid?!! :-)
Salwa
*************
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:45:00 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: pc
When you go away, set nomail!
I also found Spivak's work very self-conscious and repetitive in its
identity politics - but there is also something I like in the stance.
It's not as open as, say, Kristeva's, from a psychoanalytical viewpoint
-
Kristeva being one of my favorite writers...
Alan
*************
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:57:11 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Drew Shiel
Hi - Drew / Gothwalker will be co-moderator with Caitlin and myself; I
need help in relation to everyday life here. You can write him at
gothwalk[....].com . We'll try and make all decisions group ones.
I also want to thank Caitlin who has worked behind everything, handling
error messages - without her I'd have been swamped, and she's also been
invaluable at times in terms of policy. And I'm certain Drew will be a
welcome addition.
yours, Alan
*************
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:16:43 +0200
From: Maurizio Mariotti
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (MM talks with God)
Mike Gorecki scripsit:
> Damn all these foreigners. You know where this world would be w/o
> foreigners? Well, there would be no world ... but that is besides the
> point...
Funny that you mention that. Yesterday afternoon I had a
conversation with God much along the same lines.
"Morris, I have decided to destroy mankind."
"Excellent idea, Sir! Another Great Flood?"
"Don't be so predictable, Morris. I thought of a large asteroid, this
time."
"Great choice, Sir! Any particular nation or continent to start with?"
"Never end a sentence with a preposition, Morris."
"Sorry, Sir."
"That's ok. I was thinking of destroying Canada, first."
"Wonderful idea, Sir! When do you start?"
"I wish you were not such a sycophant, Morris. Go on, argue with
me. Give me a good reason for not destroying Canada."
"Argue with you, Sir? Will you not smite me?"
"No, I wont. Go on, give me a good reason."
"Very good, Sir. Three reasons, in PC alphabetical order: Alchemy
MindWorks, Rose and South Park."
"Huh?"
"Alchemy MindWorks, Sir, the software company?"
"I am that I am, but a geek I am not. Next!"
"Rose?"
"Who's Rose?"
"Respectfully, Sir, but in the ontology of God-hood, you are
supposed to know every member of your flock."
"Don't be cheeky, Morris. Besides, that postmodernist stuff is
messing with your head."
"Sorry, Sir. You are so right, Sir. How about South Park?"
"I hate those iconoclastic nerds!"
"Respectfully, Sir, but are you not supposed to be the God of
Love?"
"Don't patronize me, Morris!"
"Sorry, Sir."
"You have not given me any reasons for sparing Canada, Morris.
Canada is history."
"Of course, Sir. Good decision, Sir. Er, that asteroid will also
destroy life in the USA, Sir..."
"Collateral damage is unavoidable, Morris."
"Of course, Sir, you are always so totally right, Sir."
-------
The rest was personal stuff.
M
*************
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:14:36 -0600
From: Gordon Rumson
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (MM talks with God)
Greetings,
I will not comment on God's typos, but will comment on God's choice of
Canada for impact.
First off, cheap shot: Canada's big. Hard to miss. How 'bout taking aim
at something like Pitcairn Island? You're God.
Second, Canada has brought the world more laughter than anyone else. Can
you say Jim Carrey? Austin Powers? Half the Blues Brothers?
Third, Canada is about to be host to some of the biggest players in the
behind the scenes conspiratorial attempts to impoverish the world's huddled
masses for the sake of the few already really rich. Oh, sorry that's not a
good reason..
Fourth: I LIVE HERE. I LOVE THIS LAND. I'M STANDING ON GUARD! I PLAY
HOCKEY (Okay, I just watch it, but if I could get off my frozen butt, I'd
play it). I AM CANADIAN!!!
Oops, I've just become a beer commercial.
Okay, sorry God, fire away...
Wait, wait!!!
I have a reason: We live next to...to...well, you know (hushed tones)
them
.
.
.
.
\/
Whew...that was close...
All best wishes,
Gordon Rumson
Pianist and composer
*************
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:22:27 +0300
From: Kathryn Koromilas
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (MM talks with God)
God could always just turn off the power, pull out the plug, stop riting or
even commit suicide, right?
kk
*************
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:27:36 -0300
From: Rose Mulvale
Subject: Re: Slavegirl (MM talks with God)
This has all been done, Tom. Let's try for something really innovative.
Now, this has been done once (so far as I know), but nobody has played with
its consequences (I feel heat...): earth axis shift. Or - hmmm. How about
a universal mind shift, so that every masculine characteristic is considered
feminine, and vice versa. No sex role reversal, here - just what is
considered attractive by the sexes (generally speaking, of course - we
haven't envolved enough yet the make this a useless exercise...)
- Rose, off for her (late) afternoon nap
*************
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:57:58 -0700
From: jonathan marshall
Subject: Re: Fw: 'Miss' Powell
Huh David, you are quite serious in calling this
letter "quite civil, and also very polite and
apologetic"?
I dunno, perhaps its a cultural thing, and given how
sensitive to the multicultural we have become, then
perhaps its just me as Australian that finds that it
seems incredibly patronising or superior, and
incredibly likely to produce the kind of response it
got....
Just out of curiosity, I wonder what other kind of
reponse it could have been expected to have evoked,
and i wonder how other people might have felt if they
got a letter like this after expressing distress.
jon
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:57:43 -0400
>From: dstreever
>Subject: Fw: Miss Powell
>HEADERS (for those who care)
[[snip]]
*************
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:52:03 -0400
From: TMB
Subject: Re: Fw: Miss Powell
This is pretty wrong, if you ask me. It rests on the notion that
unsubbing, since it doesn't swear, is necessarily appropriate behavior
that is not as severe as swearing or name calling once. Goodness.
Unsubbing is far more severe than swearing. A recent study showed that
kids growing up in divorced families in which there was fighting were more
emotionally stable than those in which the parents did not fight in front
of the kids. The divorce, of course, is far more severe an action than
yelling or being angry. Depending, of course. There should be more room
for such a response, I think, even if it was ad hominem. If it carries on,
of course, that's another matter. As some others noted, simply having some
room for reactions, and then questions, is minimally appropriate and
possible. This sort of "rally round the list leader and cast out the bad!"
looks, well, I'm afraid to say how it looks for fear of incurring the
same. I'm not even suggesting that the unsub was so terrible, but some
room for reactions of that sort ought to be made, especially when it
involves difficult texts, violent imagery and themes, etc. Then the quick
rally, chasing someone off, etc. It looks to me like a cheap and rather
exploitative way of affirming group unity at the expense of a
scapegoat.
Then you go to pains to apologize for your own infraction, affirming the
general standard: Here are the rules, absolutely no swearing, but
unsubbing is fine. And you really have gone to pains, repeatedly and
profusely apologizing for this. Yet swearing remains of a class of action
that is, prima facie, at least, much lower in its violence than
unsubbing.
Nor did Ms. Powell make any real attempt actually to silence Alan. So what
is the big deal? Why this level of intolerance and even "chasing off"?
And why no swearing? Does it *really* hurt that much? And *why*? If one is
not doing what one is being called a prick for, why does it incur so much
backlash, so swiftly? Of course, she didn't say, "this text looks, I dont'
know, fucked up to me!" She was drawing into question whether it should
have been written and distributed at all. I agree that's difficult
territory. It is, again, mitigated by the very subject matter and should
lead to more questions first, I think.
TMB
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, dstreever wrote:
> HEADERS (for those who care)
------------------------------------------------->
[[snip]]
On to Part 5
gender page
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page