--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Wow. This is the most blatant instance of > > deliberate distortion of an exchange I've ever seen > > on an electronic forum. > > I don't really know if your distortion was deliberate Judy, > but it is a distortion of my intent. The comment that I made > that seemed to make you feel you had a license to launch and > offensive personal attack on my character was this:
Yes, exactly as I pointed out in the post to Vaj that you quote above. *HE DELETED YOUR COMMENT THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO* and cut-and- pasted a different, less offensive one, *from a different post*, to hide the issue of violence against women, to make it appear that I was overreacting, and to obscure the appalling remark of yours that you go on to quote that I *was* responding to. As I said, it's the most blatant, malicious instance of deliberate distortion of an exchange I've ever seen on an electronic forum. And you try to obscure what Vaj did by falsely accusing *me* of distortion. > > > > Drama doesn't help your case. If you are feeling threatened, > > > > call a cop. > > I was bringing the discussion of violence on women back to the > place where it belongs, in the legal system. Oh, please, Curtis, have some self-respect. You had been dissing me and raunchydog for finding the language used against Palin offensive. Here's what I said that you responded to with "Drama doesn't help your case": > It's not that the words are offensive in some > abstract way, it's that they promote an attitude > toward women that literally threatens their > physical well-being. In other words: You were pooh-poohing offense at language, and when I pointed out that such language leads to violence against women, *you pooh-poohed that too*. It wasn't "drama" that I was dragging in to "help my case," it was my, and raunchydog's, whole point in the first place. Your remark is also appalling because it ignores the fact that calling the police can itself put a woman with an abusive husband, and/or her children, in even greater danger. That's not to say such a woman should stay away from the police, only that it's not as simple as picking up the phone when her husband gets angry and threatens her. The nature of domestic abuse and how it should be handled is an extremely complex issue. To brush it off with "call a cop" is inexcusably ignorant and callous. Worse, to put the responsibility for preventing violence against women on law enforcement is to take as a given that women are at risk in the first place, rather than addressing *why* they are at risk and trying to figure out what to do to change that situation. > Remember when feminists got caught with the fabrication of > violence against women spiking to absurd heights during the > Superbowl? It didn't help the cause, it hurt it. What does that have to do with anything? > So when people discuss political discussions of Sara Palin's > attractiveness as a prelude to abuse to women, I cry foul. Nobody's discussing that. That's how you're dishonestly framing what we were discussing so you have an excuse to pooh-pooh it and avoid looking at the real issue. The article about Palin, and the misogynistic garbage directed at Hillary Clinton, are *manifestations* of an *attitude* toward women that leads to their physical (not to mention emotional) abuse. The only reason Palin (or Hillary) come up in this context is because the misogyny directed at them has been so blatant and public. Normally it's much more hidden. > I live in an immigrant community and I can tell you there is > such a thing as violence against women. But there is a > distrust of the legal system and charges are rarely pressed. There are more reasons why charges are rarely pressed than distrust of the legal system, Curtis. So while self proclaimed > feminists argue about terms being used for a woman who might > conceivably be facing down Putin someday, real women are > actually being harmed, and it has nothing to do with mentioning > Palin's rack in an article. This is just incoherent. Again, "real" women are being harmed because of the same misogynistic attitudes that generate sexist comments about Palin, and it's doubly shocking when a *woman* uses language that perpetuates those attitudes. Violence against women *does* have to do with sexist language, but not in the straw-man way you're trying to dismiss. It has to do with men who are abusive to women and > sometimes vise versa. (some of my African neighbors have > this problem.) So my appeal was to call a cop if you > actually feel threatened by any man (or woman) and remember > the story of the boy who called wolf. Non sequitur. > Regarding your tired old claim that I have a "I'm such a nice > guy facade": You haven't pulled this one out in a while Judy, > but I see it is always under the surface for you. I stand by it. It comes up when you forget to maintain the facade for a moment, usually when you're angry about being challenged, and say something disgraceful like your "call a cop" comment. It reveals a lot about how you > view people, but very little about me. No, Curtis, it's about *you*, specifically. You're the only person I know who does what you do. I am as direct and upfront as > any poster here concerning my POV and who I am personally. > And I dislike this "move" you make while posting where you > shift the discussion from ideas to my character. Says Curtis, trying very hard to shift the discussion to *my* character. You seem unable to disagree > with a person's position on an issue without resorting to > this tactic Depends entirely on the nature of the position. > and it isn't very "nice." Oh, boo-hoo.
