On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 01:19:31AM -0500 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Julie thought:
> From: Conor Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:53:59AM -0500 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
> > Julie thought:
> > > Ah, well that explains it. I always use "separatist" like "lesbian"
> > > just magically goes in front of it. Never encountered a het
> > > separatist ...
> >
> > Julie,
> >
> > you also said in an earlier post:
> >
> > > I think lesbian separatism is only noticible because men believe they
> have
> > > the right to women's energy.
> >
> > Could you explain lesbian seperatism for me please? I've only come across
> > it recently (from you in fact) and I currently understand it in the form
> >
> > "We can live quite happily (in fact more happily) *without* men."
> >
> > Is this only without men sexually or is it more like "seperate from a
> > male-dominated world"?
>
> Well, not being a separatist, I'm really the wrong person to ask.
> However, you being a male just aren't likely to get an answer from a
> sep ;-)
>
> Separatism is more than lesbianism, which I think answers the "only
> without men sexually". Different women practice it to varying degrees.
> Some won't even speak to a man, much less allow men into their
> space. They may consider any woman who's ever had sex with a
> man to be "the enemy", even if she's no longer associating in any
> manner with men. Others limit their separatism to their private lives.
>
> Also it can be for a variety of reasons -- not wanting to have to deal
> with male intrusions, wanting to be able to focus on women's issues,
> or just on some woman/women they know. There isn't a single
> answer.
>
> > I'm interested by the "right to women's energy" remark above also. Is
> > this the "Type this up for me there's a dear" kind of attitude which
> > escalates into "You only exist for me to have sex on and to bear my
> > children"?
>
> My experience is that it's just pervasive. Everything from "Could
> you type this for me" to "Now that you women worked so hard to
> set up domestic violence shelter's for yourselves, how about you
> help us set up ones for ourselves?". I notice it in my life when I
> find myself asking the question "And why does he expect me to
> do this?!?" and I don't have a good answer.
I could understand that. I see that in action at times.
> > Regarding ESR, Well, he _did_ call it "sex"tips didn't he? He makes
> > fairly reasonable points IMO, he does talk about mutuality, sensitivity,
> > respect etc.
>
> I think his thing only makes "fairly reasonable points" if you view
> women as sex objects to be conned into going to bed with you ...
I'd have to disagree there. My reading of the article is that it's about
"being successful at casual sex". I don't think a woman who is not
planning for casual sex is going to be "conned" into it just because I
happen to have made the effort to be "sexy" but, if she *is* looking for
sex, it might make the difference between her choosing _me_ rather than
the other guy over there.
I've found ESR's (technical) writings to be helpful and informative but I
have reservations about his useage of hackerdom and his fame therein for
purposes other than the furtherance of hackerdom (vis. his "Geeks with
Guns" campaign which angered a lot of Irish hackers (here, we use guns for
murder and for little else, we have an unarmed (standard) police force
and very low incidence of gun crime, apart from the terrorists who claim
to be "republicans" or "patriots" (them, I spit on...))). On account of
that, when I saw this thread, I approached the article prepared to be
offended but wasn't.
> I mean, if you have to change who you are to get a date, I think
> the basic issue of trust has already flown straight out the window.
We all wear different faces for different events. I don't think anyone
goes out either on a date or looking for one without wearing a suitable
facade. It's for later for mutual trust to develop. You may be soft and
vulnerable with your partner while being hard and progressive in your
career. This isn't "cheating" your partner, it may be that both you and
your partner know that this is a loving game or it may be that you both
feel secure enough in each other to let down the facade that you need to
wear at work. Likewise, you don't indulge in your habitual nose-picking
while out looking for a date. This isn't a trust issue, it may be that
you plan to eliminate this habit. I may (actually, I *do*) appear
confident in public but I have someone whom I trust in whom to confide my
uncertainties and fears. (Interesting how I said "I" in relation to being
confident and "you" in relation to nose-picking! It isn't personal! :-) )
Similarly, someone who exercises to achieve a fitter/sexier body isn't
changing who they are so much as making the effort to improve themselves.
Again, it's not "breaking trust".
OTOH, the alcoholic who pretends is definitely breaking trust.
ESR isn't recommending any sort of cheating though. Even the bit about
listening (which is traditionally where you can get in trouble "Hmmm?"
"yes dear") talks about "paying attention". It's not explicitly said,
but listening properly will often lead to interest in the conversation
while appearing to listen won't. Saying "listening works" is not in
itself a cheat since it will get you in deeper to mutual awareness, while
dropping tabs in her drink might also work but is definitely wrong. He
says later
" Being a decent human being and treating her like a human being is not a
distraction or a sacrifice"
I think this encapsulates the whole thing. Mutuality and respect are the
keys to the whole mating thing. If you alter who you are and how you
behave in order to achieve such mutuality, you're not cheating.
I'm sure I could have said more or been clearer but the kids need their
lunch.
Conor.
--
Conor Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Domestic Sysadmin :-)
---------------------
Faenor.cod.ie
11:57am up 41 days, 21:32, 0 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Hobbiton.cod.ie
11:14am up 41 days, 20:24, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
