Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <436FAF80.8D75027C &AElig wayne.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511071715300.16188 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <436FAF80.8D75027C &AElig wayne.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:36:07 -0500 (EST)
To: Andrew Reeves <andrew.reeves &AElig wayne.edu>
cc: mjste &AElig umich.edu, vfossum &AElig eecs.umich.edu, jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu,         improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Feminism debate
Status: O

That joke reflects deep misogyny.  I'm glad you're only reproducing it as 
a pathological specimin from an earlier era.  But we still have a long way 
to go and a lot to fight for, which is why I'll continue to proudly call 
myself a feminist.


Like it says on my car,
   FEMINISM: The radical notion that women are people.


PS: I have a lot to say to Melanie, but Augie has said much it.  You rock, 
Augie.

PPS: I'm updating your labels as people speak up.  Could someone add 
definitions on the whiteboard as well?  Keep it concise though.

   http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld/


--- \/   FROM Andrew Reeves AT 05.11.07 14:48 (Today)   \/ ---

>   I apologize for any perceived personal insult in my last message.
> There was no intent to offend Michelle personally; actually, I thought
> that she was quoting some unidentified original source. On the other
> hand, the valiant efforts of Victoria and others to portray this as
> nothing but a deep psychoanalytic explanation for anorexia, bulimia and
> other eating disorders is totally off base and flatly contradicts the
> very wording of Michelle's remarks--"..yet another MEANS of encouraging
> women to take up less space in the world" [emphasis added]. In other
> words, female physical build and/or fashion trends, obviously dictated
> or inspired by men, are a plot in the competition for cubic footage in
> the increasingly crowded inhabitable sphere of the planet. This is how
> I understood the remark and in this sense, and in this context, I am
> afraid that I have to stand by my original opinion of this view.
>   To answer Victoria's question of whether I was ever "coerced" to
> have sexual intercourse, the answer is not easy: certainly, in the
> bland anatomic/physical sense, NO, but that is really obvious given
> the physiologic realities of the male body. I was, a few times in my
> life, placed in situations that amounted to virtual psychologic
> coercion--and I successfully extricated myself every time. To tell you
> quite frankly, extreme forwardness of women has (or had) an anti-
> aphrodisiac effect on me and we European males of my generation were
> quite accustomed to, and even learned to like, a certain bashfulness
> in women. At the risk of being frivolous, let me quote an old joke
> that illustrates the situation.
>   What is the difference between a DIPLOMAT and a LADY?
> If a diplomat says YES, he means MAYBE. If he says MAYBE, he means NO.
> If he says NO, he is no diplomat.
> If a lady says NO, she means MAYBE. If she says MAYBE, she means YES.
> If she says YES, she is no lady.
>   Perhaps a very poor joke, but a good indicator of the mentality
> we grew up in, and perhaps it also gives a flicker of explanation for
> the spurious McKinnon quote because a certain gentle but firm
> determinedness on the part of the male in overcoming the probably
> phoney female hesitation in the last phase of foreplay was not al all
> considered bad form in that culture.
>   In closing, let me salute James Mickens whose comments were in my
> view the best in the lot in this whole debate.
>   DANNY'S GRANDPA ANDREW
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  google://"Daniel Reeves"

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it."
                 -- Donald Knuth