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.
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.
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?
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"?
>>> P 04/19/14 6:02 PM >>>
I would rather read Eliot than all this negativity.
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.
>>> Chanan Mittal 04/19/14 10:55 AM >>>
"the association of man and womanIn daunsinge, signifying matrimonie˜A dignified and commodious sacrament.Two and two, necessarye coniunction,Holding eche other by the hand or the armWhiche 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?
>>> 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: