that's nice. everybody has dislikes and likes. now, would someone else like to contribute to the disucssions.
[she wonders if somehow the lesson in how to support an argument had been botched. no one in the room seemed to understand. yes, she was really certain that she thoroughly explained the diffeernece between assertion of an opinion and reasoned argument, but still....they didn't seem to be putting the lesson to good use.... odd.]
steve, i just gotta tell ya that i love what you have to say all the time. especially your sarcastic slams of our pal chang.. nonetheless........
i suspect it'll take a lot more than the fact that you do or don't *like* something i or anyone else has to say for it to mean a whole heck of a lot.
i've made an argument that i've finally decided to make after months of reading chaz condescending to me, kirsten, frances and ange when i've seen little evidence of similar consdescending behavior toward men.. i don't particularly care whether you like the argument or me or anything else. steve's liks and dislikes are rather unimportant here, as our mine and everyone else's
i've asked that charles be more cognizant of his sometimes sexist responses to women on this list. that's all. chaz's response to my relatively politie request was to dismiss my concerns by ignoring them, by suggesting that i was playing some sort of game, and by laughing at them.
not only did he fail to address my serious question--and there was very little hostility in my first post--he belittled my concerns about sexism.
so, whether you agree or not that chaz has a history of sexist behavior on this list, i think it pretty clear that chaz's behavior recently is sexist.
when someone has the kahones to mention sexism on a list--whether the claim is right or wrong-- i think it ought to be taken seriously and not taking it seriously is, more often than not, sexism.
now, i'll sign of for a few days and re-read my list manual. i guess i missed the part about being sure to type things that steve [and everyone else too?] likes
though i suppose you might want to read your list manual too and consider whether it may be that your liking or disliking what i have to say or not has anything to do with disciplinary differeneces --differences which tend to signify other wider social/political differences and inequalities- - say the differences that this list is meant to bridge such that we might, at least, come to see how those differences are very political and are so in systematic ways that benefit some and not others.
i'm sure yoshie that we can have polite, tidy little exchanges such as those that take place daily in the academy and on the pages of refereered journals. yes, indeedy, we could mill about in a well-appointed room, listening to the sounds of miles wafting from a politie jazz quartet, sipping pinot noir and nibbling on cruditees, slipping polite notes to one another under the cocktail napkins. such safe protected contexts are so comfortable, pleasant --and i'd hazard *enjoyable*-- in many ways. surely in such bounded little places you may endlessly reassure yourself of your prowess at whatever academic game you choose rather than exposing yourself to the violence and indeterminacy of a world in which people from many differenct 'habituses' collide and interact in a generative, productive way.
>My take. I usually like what Yoshie has to write more than what Charles
>has to write, n' what Doug has to write I would say the same, though
>Charles is someone who's knowledge of issues I would estimate to be as
>great or greater depending on the issue as Yoshie or Doug. On this matter,
>though, I find myself liking what Yoshie and charles are writing in their
>recent exchanges with you (can't comment on doug's thoughts, haven't seen
>them vis this exchange). At the same time, sometimes I find some of the
>commentaries you write of interest, though usually they don't do the same
>thing as Yoshie or Charles's or Doug's commentaries...
>
>Steve
>
>Stephen Philion
>Lecturer/PhD Candidate
>Department of Sociology
>2424 Maile Way
>Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
>Honolulu, HI 96822
>
>
>On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, kelley wrote:
>
>> yes, yoshie, i'm sure it is all you'll have to say on the topic since you
>> couldn't possibly be bothered to consider whether the purported differences
>> between angela/doug [which aren't as great as i'd say are the differences
>> between chaz/doug ( "different political views, styles of writing, etc.?")
>> might be gendered at all? and perhaps even nationalized, eh?
>>
>> whatevA. i just love how folks can flit about this list accusing everyone
>> of racism each and every time they disagree and the one friggin time i
>> decide that i've had just about enough of the condescending sexism the
>> argument gets sloughed off. twice. first it's simply ignored. then it's
>> just laughed at.
>>
>> what is that yoshie? huh? would it be perfectly okay if we did that in
>> response to charges of racism.
>>
>> no.
>>
>> it's really just incredible.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>