Print

Print


One does not come upon a single instance in his personal, social or
professional life, when Eliot ever was rude or did not hold women in
respect.

CR

On Sunday, April 20, 2014, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> And Eliot wrote that line in PRUFROCK with a specific class/section of
> women in mind, not about womankind. Of course, everything looks yellow to
> jaundiced eyes.
>
> CR
>
> On Sunday, April 20, 2014, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I must call negative negative, be it through a mode of satire. That does
> not generalize my opinion of women. How silly!
>
> CR
>
> On Sunday, April 20, 2014, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> In the spirit of positivity, I am answering this as a serious response to
> a serious question.
>
> No, you do not sense any misandry. And I do not have any problem. If there
> is a problem, then, it is not mine.
>
> It would be hard to find any gloss on the line about women coming and
> going, over all of Eliot criticism, that does not describe it as mocking
> the women. It is seen in the juxtaposition, the doggerel rhythm, the
> feminine rhyme. The women have always been considered as representing
> pseudo-intellectual and silly chatter. It runs through practically every
> book and article on "Prufrock" from the earliest commentaries. It is simply
> a standard reading. And the doggerel and feminine rhyme really do make it a
> sudden shift in tone to satire.
>
> CR reads Eliot as a kind of Christian scripture; any suggestion that TWL
> is not permeated with and ending with a kind of glorious renewal seems to
> evoke a long series of posts on its representation of transcendence.
>
> So when woman in the *Guardian* says otherwise, he simply quotes that
> mockery of female pretension at understanding anything.
>
> That is to re-enact the mockery. And it is one of the Eliot lines that is
> also overtly mocking women. And, in fact, that is not an isolated event. He
> has often made comments that are offensive about women--few recently but
> this is not new.
>
> So I repeat that I find it offensive.
> Nancy
> P. S. I did not learn anything from you, nor do I find anything positive
> to learn in CR's quotations. Why would you imagine such a source?
>
>
>
> >>> P  04/20/14 5:07 AM >>>
> Do I sense some misandry here?
> I may not be so good at positivity but it seems to me that CR is. If you
> learned negativity from me, why not learn from him. Besides I did my best
> to stop being negative quite some time ago. It was having too negative an
> effect on me. You used to talk about not getting personal. CR cites a tired
> old line from Prufrock which is a satire on E.M. Forster's hinting that
> women had to go to Florence's David to get their sex education and you jump
> down his throat. What's your problem?
> Peter
>
> Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I'm sure you have a copy of the poems. Who is stopping you? And who
> created the "negativity"?
> N
>
> >>> P  04/19/14 6:02 PM >>>
> I would rather read Eliot than all this negativity.
> Peter M.
>
> Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> The time of the coupling iof man and woman
> And tht of beasts. Feet rising ahd falling.
> Eating and drinking. Dung and death.
>
> If you do not see the rest of this and its associations, perhaps this
> constant retyping what everyone on the list has read is even more pointless
> than I thought.
>
> Your misogynistic remarks are offensive, and I resent them.
>
> I'm sure your crew will now find a need to add to them and address them to
> me, but that is too common to mean anything.
>
> What I find a concern is that no one else on the list seems willing to
> care or to address them. And perhaps none have noticed that I am the only
> woman who remains on it in any ongoing way, though I'm glad to see Kate
> back, if infrequently.
> Nancy
>
> >>> Chanan Mittal  04/19/14 10:55 AM >>>
> "the association of man and woman
> In daunsinge, signifying matrimonie╦ť
> A dignified and commodious sacrament.
> Two and two, necessarye coniunction,
> Holding eche other by the hand or the arm
> Whiche betokeneth concorde"
>
> CR
>
> On Saturday, April 19, 2014, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Do you think you might keep your misogyny to yourself? Or is it important
> to note that Eliot shared it?
> Nancy
>
> >>> Chanan Mittal  04/19/14 9:44 AM >>>
> "In the room the women come and go / Talking of Michelangelo."
>
> CR
>
> On Saturday, April 19, 2014, Rickard A. Parker <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>