fans sex

Coco · Post by **Coco** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 6:51 am

Jurica, I think your post was very emotional. And illogical.

And as for your statement that only women are famous as fashion/beauty models whereas male models are not. That only proves the point that women are valued specifically for their looks (while they last). And men are valued for their minds or the work they do. While everyone admires beauty (the world would be a dreary place without beautiful people) you seem to think that is what women specifically should be valued for.

No one here said they were being suppressed. Did they? It was a general discussion about past female writers, such as George Elliot. You don't think, do you, that women were never at a disadvantage? Harvard and Yale University didn't accept women students until the 1970's. So we have had some catching up to do. And we don't hate men. We love them.

tom.d.stiller · Post by **tom.d.stiller** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:18 am

"Woman is the nigger of the world..." - wasn't John Lennon man enough to say that? - Of course women have been suppressed over the millennia, only a fool could deny that. As far as I remember, Leonard said in an interview in the sixties that he'd like women to take over leadership. (I can't confirm the exact words right now - maybe someone will be able to supply them. Wasn't it printed in the songbook to "Songs of Love and Hate"?) I could live with that - my only fear being that it could result in a patriarchy with female patriarchs. It's not the reversal of roles that's called for, but a change in structure. Women's Lib? Men's Lib? Human's Lib - that's what's needed.

"Emotive or emotional language" has evolved over the centuries. Male writers have published most of the poems and prose, but what does this mean: Specialists in refining words have worked on what emerged from real interaction between men and women - neither men nor women created the language, the interaction between them did the job. Who's going to claim priority? The hen? The egg?

One final thought: I don't want to start a discussion an Genetics, but overstating the role of the genes in all this may serve but one purpose: to avoid the changes that are desperately needed. Genetics in itself might be considered a conservative science. "After all, it's in the genes, and nothing can be done about it," I hear them saying. But there's a lot that can be done about it. And it's darn necessary that something will be done about it. And to do something about it will be well worth the trouble.

Tom

PS: Being a male member of the species I reject most of what Jurica posted. The remark about "models" topped everything else, but the rest pointed to the same end. I agreed with many of your previous posts, Jurica, and I'm sure I'll agree with you in the future just as often, but I cannot but disagree with what you contributed to this thread.

jurica · Post by **jurica** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 1:08 pm

coco,

yo did say women were suppressed:

'I wonder how many Mrs Rembrandts and Mrs Thackerays suppressed their own talent in order ...', says she.

tom,

don't apologize for disagreeing.

yo,

your command of english is quite good. why do you think it is not?
but i never intended to be rude... i went over the last post again, and i don't see it as rude still.

everybody,

please don't get so easily ofended. we must disagree to learn. and we must try to prove our opinions. what would be the point if we just start a thread in which everybody would agree. there's nothing we'd learn.

i've stated some opinions that even i don't fully agree with just for the sake of conversation.

please don't be ofended...

...and why do you all seem to feel beauty is something of less value than brains? why aren't women proud of their looks?

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 1:28 pm

Tom ~

Leonard's words that you're seeking are, " I wish the women would hurry up and take over." His quote is on the back cover of the "Songs of Love and Hate" songbook, published in 1972.

~ Elizabeth

Added Note: The wonderful thing about Leonard's words here is that he lives them with his almost exclusively, if not exclusively [it at least used to be all female] staff. He has a high level of trust with accomplished women, in dealing with his work and what he's trying to accomplish.

tom.d.stiller · Post by **tom.d.stiller** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:12 pm

Jurica -

I didn't mean to apologize for disagreeing. But in the light of some recent discussion I wanted to restate the obvious once again: Some of us know how to disagree without offending or being offended, while others tend to read offences into what isn't more than voicing a different opinion. I'm aware that you understand this, but I didn't want to give "them" room to say I'd try to "bicker'n'bully" you away...

And I fully agree: There'd really be no point having a discussion without any controversial points. So there's nothing wrong with trying to prove points, and I don't feel there's anything wrong with playing the advocatus diaboli either.

Btw: of course I am not offended.

A final point: I reckon we all "came so far for beauty" that we value it as high as "brains". But that doesn't say that there is any reason to reduce women to being beautiful and men to being brainy.

Cheers
Tom

tom.d.stiller · Post by **tom.d.stiller** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:14 pm

Elizabeth -

You're right, of course. But I'm quite sure that this is a quote from an interview that should be printed in full somewhere. I seem to vaguely remember he said something more re that issue than just the sentence quoted...

Tom

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:52 pm

I'll get back with you on that, Tom....unless someone else does first. Early this AM, I simply went to my songbook and quoted it off the back cover. I didn't have time to research further into the book itself. Maybe the rest will magically appear before my return

.

George.Wright · Post by **George.Wright** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 7:17 pm

Leonard has a great trust of women and not of men.
He sees woman as mother nature and men as warriors.
Georges

Coco · Post by **Coco** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 6:42 am

jurica,

I'm not buying it. You were mad. Your response to Jo was all out of proportion to what Jo posted. It seems it's not just women who are easily offended. Another stereotype.

So just to let you know, I am not offended.

jurica · Post by **jurica** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 2:12 pm

coco,

when did i say: women get offended more easily????

i wrote:

everybody,

please don't get so easily ofended.

everybody doesn't mean women, it means everybody.

and my response was not mad at yo, but at this whole feminist activist idea which is spreading like SARS around the world.

i let a friend of mine (girl) through the doors before me because i thought it was polite, and got screamed at: 'what do you think you are doing!? we are equal!'
->it's stupid.

Coco · Post by **Coco** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:59 pm

Jurica,

I am sorry. But I also don't believe the story about your "friend" who "screamed" at you. Sometimes the story is "I offered my seat to a woman and she screamed at me" or "I stood up when a woman entered the room and she screamed at me".

It isn't that I think you deliberately made it up. I think you just embellished your anti-feminist views with something that makes you sound good and women sound bad. But the "I did something courteous for a woman and she screamed at me about equality" myth has been around for a long time...and keeps getting repeated.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:31 am

Coco I do hope you are not being serious or are you anti-men?

Jo · Post by Jo » Fri Jun 20, 2003 7:22 am

Jurica
I apologise profusely for the vehemence of my post concerning your response - from your subsequent posts I now understand that your command of English is not as effective as I thought at first.

Would you please invest in an English dictionary (or download one from the web)? It would be in your interest to look up these words at once:

wonder; irony.

On second thoughts - let me spare you the trouble:
wonder - noun - A state in which you want to learn more about something
wonder - verb - 1.Have a wish or desire to know something. 2.Place in doubt or express doubtful speculation; "I wonder whether this was the right thing to do"

irony - 1.The expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency, especially simulated adoption of another's point of view. 2.way of speaking in which words mean the opposite of their normal or apparent meaning.

Please don't take this as an insult or criticism - your fluency in English far exceeds mine in Croatian. I am merely pointing out how easily misunderstandings occur when incorrect assumptions are made.

Please use the "J" on your keyboard - my name is Jo - not Yo...
mind you I do rather like "Yo" - perhaps with your permission I shall adopt it.
YoJo

jurica · Post by **jurica** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:48 pm

this should teach me never to reply on subjects that are not strictly Leonard Cohen related...
i'll try and learn my lesson.

Jo · Post by Jo » Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:52 pm

Please DO "reply on subjects that are not strictly Leonard Cohen related..."

The only "lesson" that you need to learn is that expressions such as "but, jesus!" and "admit it and accept it" and "please!" used in the context within which you used them are provocative and do tend to evoke immediate negative responses... at least in me they do.
YoJo
(Do you mind if I adopt your "Yo"?

)