> if you don't "speak" the way i do, you are a sexist/racist/ or some
> other "ist", that, no matter where you are or what your native tounge is,
> you must "subscribe" to MY way of speech, if you disagree with a woman who
> happens to have a strong opinion, you are intimidated or worse, have a fear
> of "loosing control over" a woman who isn't yours to control in the first
etc. etc.
Although it isn't quite clear, I fear the above may mean me. If so, it
constructs a message I never sent, nor have I found it on the list I've
been reading.
In chapter one, I answered a question to the list in what was generally
conceded to be a goodnatured and appropriate way, declaring no absolutes,
but giving my feelings and advice about contemporary practice as I witness
it (and as confirmed by many). For this I was attacked. Instead of
chastising the attacker(s), some folks began to chastise me, probably, I
now realize, for being a New Yorker, although I didn't understand that at
the time and thought it was from being well, silly of me, but I confess, I
thought it was because I was a woman.
What does seem clear now, despite my original error, is how even the
mildest remonstrance and the most unreproachable message from a New Yorker
get twisted in the world at large. My protest at the twisting is itself
further twisted until we get the angry parody above!
Really, dear ones, has anyone said any of that or anything like it? Don't
let my place of residence fool you. Read the actual message, not the
nonsense it was turned into. And don't kill the messenger-- defend her or
him.
Judy