Print

Print


Hi folks,

there is unfinished business. Nancy asked why no one else takes offence. Why there is silence. 

I keep my mouth shut because I am not the law here. That is the only reason and my silence  says nothing more.

Also while  I am not scared of a bit of abuse back I am mindful that others here know more than me - a lot more - and my opinion is limited by ignorance. To engage in some of this dialogue would be naive and unhelpful.

So I tread carefully as one does in relationships... if you are in it for the long haul …..so as not to make things worse.

This little note is not a  directive and in fact I don’t have advice for anyone on how to behave.

But to leave Nancy’s question unanswered suggests either cowardice in the face of one person  being thumped by many at its most basic ( if not part of a patriarchal collusion in the more general way of things) or an implied rejection of her proposition.

The charge of cowardice I will take on the chin it may be so.  I certainly don’t dare do all that may become a man. 

I think Nancy is a formidable contributor so have not felt she needed me to wave any flag. 

Early in the list history I did try to stand up for one or two who were not formidable and were getting I felt a poor deal but everyone now hits in the big league I think.  And there aren’t many people in the room now.

So just for the record I didn’t see any sexism in the Prufrock quote but allow it may be there either in the quote itself or in its use but I accept Chanan’s clarification.  I have seen sexism on the list.  In general I think men who believe they can always recognise sexism have limited imaginations. I don’t expect to recognise it in myself when it occurs.

I admire Nancy’s knowledge and intellectual engagement as I do that of other’s here. I do not agree with posts which say someone else  is not providing good quality posts. It’s not hard to ignore a post and I do not accept that it sullies the list. 

But then I come from a country which does not value high cultural seriousness and  in that respect I am a not a native speaker here. So please do ignore this if it is likely to be counter productive. Remember we are the country who gave you Dame Edna. ( Yeah Mel Gibson too but he’s one of yours we sent back).

Cheers Pete


On 21 Apr 2014, at 5:06 am, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Not that I have ever read. It seems to be comic merely that they are doing so at all. The lines have no indication in either section.
> Nancy
> 
> >>> P 04/20/14 12:40 PM >>>
> Does the criticism suggest what it is about Michelangelo the women are supposed to be discussing?
> P.
> 
> 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˜
> 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:
> I don't think I would have bothered to point out this latest of the
> Guardian's "How to Believe" series except that the ending paragraph (below)
> touches on a few recent TSE list topics.
> 
> The poem draws on and shatters into pieces the polite culture of Eliot's
> cultivated youth – bits of Arthurian lore, echoes of Shakespeare and
> Goldsmith and Ovid – as well as less conventionally acceptable literature –
> a line from Baudelaire here, of de Nerval there. It draws on Christianity –
> the agony in the garden, the unrecognisable companion on the road to Emmaus,
> the allusions to St Augustine in spiritual crisis – and Buddhism, with the
> three-fold commands of the thunder in the last section. Yet, at best, it
> offers little consolation; after the seeming resolution of the commands of
> the thunder's precepts, it bursts out in anguish again with a line from
> Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy – "Hieronymo's mad againe" (Eliot will have known
> that Kyd was a notorious atheist, one of Marlowe's School of Night). The
> thunder repeats, but the call to peace at the end – "Shantih, shantih,
> shantih" – is perhaps the peace of exhaustion rather than acceptance. Eliot
> is presenting a diagnosis of his, and our, sickness, but he is not yet sure
> of the prescription – which is why, perhaps, The Waste Land is so great a poem.
> 
> ------------------
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/apr/17/ts-eliot-waste-land-radical-text-wounded-culture
> 
> TS Eliot's The Waste Land: the radical text of a wounded culture
> 
> The poem draws on draws on the Christianity of Eliot's polite and cultivated
> youth – yet at best offers little consolation
> 
> Roz Kaveney
> theguardian.com, Thursday 17 April 2014