Butler on Spivak (was SZ)

kelley oudies at flash.net
Fri Dec 3 10:42:20 PST 1999



>Kelley, you will note that when I was away from my home
>computer--attending to a family member's serious illness-- I sent
>you a reply to your charge of my manipulative use of feminism, and asked
>you to send it to the list.

ahh geez rakesh, like maybe i have things to attend to as well and just plain forgot. why was it my job to send anything to the list. you were perfectly capable of sending it to doug and having hiim forward it on just as you did re the original post. furthermore, you could have easily briefly subbed and sent it, that takes all of 10 mintus. sub, send, unsub.

or you might have gotten yourself web based mail. so get up off your knees and dust yourself off.

You never did. It was my impression that you
>wanted to keep the discussion off list, that you were uncomfortable with
>the nature of my reply, that you did not want it to be seen on LBO.

oh kiss the mole on my left knee rakesh. i sent you 15k in response. i just forgot to do what you'd asked. why the fuck am *I* supposed to satsify your needs? you have something to say in your defense you know just how to do it: you're going to plead ignorance of the possibilities of the above? you had an email account through compuserv so gimme a break.

You
>say you had all these criticisms of Eagleton now, but my memory is that
>you reposted his review without any critical comment attached or anywhere
>near it.

spare me. there are archives. look it up.

But I wasn't paying close attention then, I will grant. I offered
>criticism of Eagleton again and your blindless to an obvious problem
>(which you did not point to when you downloaded the review again). You
>then accused me of anti feminism. I

rakesh, did you not say i was an anti-feminist and part of the compulsive anti-feminism of this list. i was saying just exactly what angela said -- you appropriate "feminism" in a way so as to discredit me belying your ignorance of feminist thought.

sent you a reply which I thought you
>would do me the courtesy of forwarding to LBO. You never did so, claiming
>that you never saw it in our box. Bullshit.

what are you talking about? i never forwarded the one of a month ago be/c i forgot rakesh. i was in the midst of building a web page, just as my reponse to you indicated. check it out. it was a big project. i also have plenty of other things going on.

as you'll notice, i replied to you at 2 a.m. and wasn't thinking of sending mail to lbo. i took time out from building a web page to respond to you. the latest note i did not see --you can ask several people about my failure to see their offlists --doug, eric, carrol, yoshie, brett, raphael all got very late responses from me primarily because i just dumped 8000 mails from my inbox. i couldn't even bear to look at my inbox and unless someone's name was at the bottom of the mailbox, then i didn't sift throug the hundreds that have come in at a time since syr uni's server fucked up my account recently. some wack loop thing. i could reply to lbo mail becasue it goes into a sep. box.

At any rate, out of
>courteseous respect of your evident disinclination to have this dicussion
>on list, I thought this was a debate we could have privately. You turn
>this around to make seem some like cyber off list harrasser. I am ignoring
> you from now on. Well, I am unsubbing.

oh please. look at the rhetorical style of your post to me once again. if you were courteous you would have written *TO* me. addressing me, not the wide world of LBO. you used the third person, rakesh. this is not evidence of courtesy and this is not evidence that you cared one wit about having a debate but rather it was about retaliating when you have no other way of doing so because you haven't read the lit --you've admitted that over and over again and you have no idea about feminist thought or about spivak's latest book.

nice temper tantrum though. is this designed to get everyone writing to plead with you to stay on board? okay, rakesh. i'll start: rakesh, please please don't go. what would we do without you? you make lbo, you're integral to it. we need the diversity of voices.

honestly. you treat me like shit and you expect me to be sympathetic? where do you get this from? was there anything about what you wrote me off list that was kind? courteous? professional? did you demonstrate any of your claims? did you even attempt to keep the lines of respect and comm. going?

and yet, as pissed off as i was a month ago, i did not and i have not since tried to nail you to the wall or to burn all the bridges. i moved on and kept up a reasonable civil conversation with you, recently pleading with you not to think i thought you were anti feminist and clearly i thought you were much more feminist than many on this list.

whatever rakesh.

kelley



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list