> I would argue that it is not that we (women) do not "do well" when using
> this dominant style of discourse. Some of us do it *very* well, thank
> you very much. Even if we don't particularly like it. A *major* part of
> the problem is that when we "do well" we are *heard* differently! If my
> male colleague uses the same style of speech and says the same thing, he
> is assertive. If I do it, I am a "ball busting bitch".
And then, we have become what we have sought to resist, knowing full well
the harm it can do.
> I won't bore you with the details of my numerous experiences in this
> regard -- in the academic world and the workplace and the church -- I
> will simply say that for *me* the only solution has been to develop a
> large repertoire of discursive styles and to learn to use them in a
> consciously selective manner.
I hope dialog here (on ecofem) can help us learn, rather than alienate.
Interesting that having something to say, and not being heard, actually
leaves us with more skills than those we're trying to reach (but shit, it
does get tiresome).
> It is
> this "bridge building" component
"Bridge building" is great. "Being a bridge" suggests staying still and
getting walked on; not a great place to be in communications.
>
> One example. I was in a seminar course taught by a prof who graduated
> from Harvard Law School. His style is very "combative".
Academia. We are all (men and women) trained to be combative. Then we
marvel at difficulty attaining world peace and long-lasting
relationships.....Jayne points out nicely that this is one of many
styles. It is associated, and supports maintaining privilege....white
male or just white (it's not an indigenous cultural style, to my knowlege)
privilege.
Learning is great. Back to my previous question. What will motivate
white males, entrnched in maintaining white male privilege, learn new
styles?
Barbara Bliss
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 21 13:40:45 MDT 1995
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barbara Bliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Woodley
To: Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 x 113 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <A100ZVSMKTG15*/R=WPB1/R=A1/U=MEEDS_C/@MHS>
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 x 113 wrote:
> Trolled? Montague's new _Rachael_ would be good flame bait, I
> think. (He talks about the deminishing virility of men.)
>
> Carol Meeds
> Jupiter, Florida
What are you talking about, Carol? Is this diminishing virility a
quantified, measured phenomenon? Is the book title "Rachael"? (I
fairly new at this). Reply personally if not of general interest...
Barbara Bliss
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 21 13:56:21 MDT 1995
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barbara Bliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
To: Kylie Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <v01510101abbbe9de4537@[203.8.222.24]>
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Kylie Matthews wrote:
>
> I agree with you Michelle. In order to avoid a competetive society and
> have a cooperatively based one I believe we need to look at the philosophy
> of Ghandi. Non-violence is essential. Non-aquistiveness (my spelling is
> bad it should mean to not want to aquire things). And to live a simple
> life. I would just add to Ghandi's list the Buddist philosophy - the
> belief that the most happiness you can find is by working to make others
> happy, and you can't be happy any other way. Basically this goes against
> what our societies are based on. Competition and consumerism. I guess
> also that this idea would be anti-American. A bit reds under the beds. If
> no one replies I'll know youre all too scared. :)
>
Nonsense. Grandpa was a card carrying communist. Where and why does
American culture come by the acquisitiveness Kylie mentioned? I have
wondered for some time how the industrial revolution got so far away from
meeting needs - How did marketing get so mush power?
Barbara Bliss
