Re: jewelia one last time.

Ms. Segiel,

In general the defense of an argued position is tainted through an offense
of personal attack--in this, reason flies and debate leaves. For example,
somewhere in your last post you've comfortably labeled me a sexist because
I took issue with your post--since you are a female and I'm a male, and
since I have not had any issues with a male's post on this list, I am
therefore, in your public reasonings, a "sexist". Fair debate is not much
of an option given the invention of such an accommodating and personal
criterion of validity. One (dictionary) definition of "sexist" is found as
follows: "Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of
social roles based on gender", which, I thought, was the root cause of my
own original post.

So far as I can tell the people who have responded to this bit on Jewelia
have done so with civility, or, at the very least, calm. I think that if a
person attempts to deflect reasoning via personal attack then the most
common courtesy would be to do so off-list, as there really is no gain in
that arena.

Finally, again returning to the original quote of Ms. Segiel, I continue to
have no ambivalence about it being derogatory to a person and to a group of
people. How I could have come to this conclusion while being "inhibited",
as has been written, is unknown. I find the original remark offending and
offensive. Personal remarks made against other contributors to this thread
in its subsequent defense I find valueless.

John Ptak

JF Ptak Science Books, LLC
&
Longstreet Antiquarian Maps & Prints, LLC
8 Biltmore Ave
Asheville NC 28801 USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: jwelia one last time.

>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Sandy King wrote:
>
>> Finally, when Mr. Ptak raised questions about her comments Judy would
>> have been much wiser to "cut her losses" with a simple apology, and then
>> shut her mouth
>
> Apologize for what? Because a lurker who admitted he didn't know the
> circumstances took offense at something HE imagined, imputed to me
> meanings I never meant, reacted from HIS prejudices, not mine, and then
> presumed to launch a public scolding ?
>
> **I** should apologize???!!! (And who has ever told Sandy, or any man on
> this list, to "shut his mouth"?)
>
> Meanwhile, you flunk reading comprehension. The point I made was that
> Jewellia had many "persona's" -- in fact that was a major part of her
> shtick. Remember? In fact, I got the impression that when s/he spoke at
> APIS a few years ago, those personalities were a major (if not THE major)
> thrust of her talk.
>
> As for mocking; that's YOUR interpretation. I was summarizing a
> trajectory. I have to notice also that you straight white guys criticize
> me from the smug reaches of straight America. I live with a very polyglot
> group running the gamut of all possibilities, and I don't think it's an
> insult to refer to particularities. YOU are the ones who consider the
> reference beyond the pale... That's YOUR problem, not mine -- or theirs.
>
>> ... Instead she chose to trot out the same old sad and tired mantra of
>> sexism that she has used for years and years to hit some of us males on
>> the list over the head with, when it pleased her to do so, by suggesting
>> that Mr.
>
> Since when has this list launched, let alone tolerated, an attack ON ANY
> MALE like the ones from you, Ryuji, Ptak, and now Kouklis on me. Name
> one! (Also, see above about I should "shut my mouth.") It seems that, at
> least on this list. Uppity Woman is ipso facto wicked witch... And YOU,
> Sandy, want ME to apologize ??!!
>
> (Of course sexism is by definition unconscious -- I don't suppose you
> think: "Here's a chance to bash Uppity Woman." The reflex is directly
> through the male prerogative centers, unmediated by higher brain
> function.)
>
>> Ptak is a sexist because he spoke out against her comments while ignoring
>> the comments of males. I see an alternative scenery, i.e. far from being
>> a sexist Mt. Ptak simply observed the comments of a limited number of
>> arrogant and insensitive human beings
>
> Now you're fabulating -- who are these "arrogant and insensitive human
> beings"? Besides me, of course. What did they say? I don't recall them.
> Unless you mean the comments today that cheered me on, most, BTW, except
> for 3 males... you, Ptak and Kouklis... Kouklis of course takes the
> opportunity to pile on, for what he once called my "anti-platinum
> attitude" (if you could believe), but you and Ptak seem to decree
> Jewellia's condition so ghastly that even mentioning it is "arrogant and
> insensitive"!
>
> Hello? S/he made a career out of it !
>
>> ... and directed his comments to the person who initiated the discussion.
>
> My dear Sandy -- now you flunk both Memory AND Reading Comprehension, I
> suppose due to same old, same old mental block. I did NOT "initiate the
> discussion." I made a brief, casual answer to a question about Jewellia's
> whereabouts. My remark, in its entirety:
>
> QUOTE:
>
> Jewelia had a sex change operation & became someone else... that was a few
> years ago. S/he may be someone ELSE by now.
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> Both points are literal public published information. What is so troubling
> about them that I am pilloried, denounced, vilified? It's OK for Ptak to
> denounce me from HIS imagination and inhibitions, but I'm a Very Bad
> Person for briefly stating proudly published facts !!!
>
> If that isn't sexism, what is it?
>
> Is it any wonder so few women challenge this list?
>
> I'd even suggest that Jewellia got away with her act because she was, at
> least at the outset, a man. (She'd once been an officer in a submarine,
> she said.) Clearly, she enjoyed being the center of attention -- the list
> tended to become a circus around her. I quite enjoyed her, too --
> otherwise I wouldn't have invited her to do an article... which,
> unfortunately, she couldn't/wouldn't complete, as I understand happened in
> other situations as well. But that's not this discussion. This discussion
> is about YOUR arrogant and insensitive lack of insight into your own
> attitudes...
>
>> That is my opinion and you can take it or leave it for all I care. But as
>> far as I am concerned this is a black and white issue with no slippery
>> slope.
>
> Yes, sadly, this discussion does seem quite black and white. But your
> white is in fact black. And vice versa ... while somehow you manage to
> ignore, denigrate and dismiss the majority of posts, which agree with
> me...
>
> For which I thank the senders most warmly, though frankly I'm getting fed
> up. After all these years I hate to leave the list in a funk, but I'm sick
> of being unable to make a casual well-intentioned answer to a question
> without all hell breaking loose.
>
> As for apologies -- you, Sandy King, owe me several.
>
> Judy
Received on Thu Mar 10 11:55:24 2005