Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I'm not even sure what it means, in either a feminist or
    non-feminist context.  That we should shoot the whiners? That
    as long as we're whining, we're still alive?
    
    Maybe I'd better go finish my coffee before I strain my brain
    trying to figure this out.
    
    --bonnie
    

    re. "dead men don't whine"
    
    As black humour, I find it emminently acceptable.  as with black
    humour in general, it is in dubious taste.
    
    As someone who finds whining counter-productive, I might have preferred
    something like 'REAL women don't whine' as hand-outs at a feminist
    conference.
    
    Because as a pragmatist, I know quite well that while a whiny man
    can be a bother, a whiny feminist can hurt our cause.
    
    I seriously doubt that this particular button slogan was a call
    to exterminate half of the species.
    
      Ann

    Well, I think I qualify as a feminist, Arpad, so I'll have a go
    at answering your questions.  My answers should of course be understood
    as reflecting my personal opinions and experience.
    
    1.  I don't know whether they're typical of feminist conventions
    because I've never been to one.  I've seen "anti-male" buttons in
    women's bookstores, though. 
    
    2.  As a serious statement about the value of men?  Absolutely not! As
    a joke along the same lines as "kids should be kept in a bag until
    they grow up"?  Sure, though I'd probably look for something more witty.
    
    3.  It's sort of a...hmmmm..."secret sign", jeez I dunno...probably all
    women have thought at least once "Why can't we keep them in boxes and
    just take them out when we want <whatever>?!"  The same sort of
    frustrated fantasy that (I'm told) men also have about women from time
    to time.  So seeing some button like that gives a quick hit of
    woman-to-woman solidarity, and in that sense advances the cause.
    
    4.  I wouldn't buy one, and I'd feel nervous about it falling into
    the hands of the unstable.  But aside from that, and a slight sense
    of distaste for the crudeness of the expression, I've no problems.
    
    5.  See 1..4 above, mutatis mutandis.
    
    						=maggie

    re .3:
    
    > 2.  As a serious statement about the value of men?  Absolutely not! As
    > a joke along the same lines as "kids should be kept in a bag until
    > they grow up"?  Sure, though I'd probably look for something more witty.

    
    My first reaction to that slogan is:
    
    	a) it labels men as whiners (presumably because of male opposition
    		to feminism)
        b) it would prefer men to be dead.
    
    I read this slogan to be saying much the same as:
    
    	"The only good communist is a dead communist".
    
    That was my first reaction. My reaction since has been the same.
    What else could it possibly be saying?
      
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I find it baffling and a little distasteful.  I would
    probably find it less baffling (and more distasteful) if it
    said something like "Dead Men Don't Bully" or something that
    seems closer to a nasty *stereotype* of men.

    But if you think this is weird, you haven't been to a science
    fiction convention...  "Do not meddle in the affairs of
    wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light"  :)  :)

    -- Linda

    re:3  So Maggie, do you find "Dead Women don't whine"  Just as
    humorous?
    I don't.  I agree that it is a statement made toward men, against
    men.  How about "Dead blacks don't whine"? or "Dead Jews don't whine"?
    or....or.....

    Al,
    
    You seem to be placing American, Caucasian males in the same
    category as oppressed minorities.
    
    Why are you doing that?
    
    						Ann B.

    As has been said before, such "humor" (or lack of it, depending
    on your POV) has a totally different face when "said" by a
    group not in power, as opposed to the group in power. Thus:
    "Dead Whites Don't Whine" is actually the <analogue? homologue?
    I forget>
    
    

    Yes, Al, that was the meaning of my last (5.?) comment:  I *do* find
    "Dead Women Don't Whine" just as humorous.  And just as tacky. And just
    as dangerous...well, maybe a skosh more dangerous:  according to
    reputable FBI statistics, women are abused by men much more often than
    the reverse. 
    
    And please quit already with the "showing true colors".  If you read
    what I wrote, you saw that I also said that I would not buy one (and by
    implication would not wear one if offered for free) because it's not
    witty enough to balance the discomfort I'd feel at the implicit
    encouragement of violence.
    
    Anyone who supposes that I ...or any other woman who writes here... is
    a genuine anti-male feminist has obviously never met one of the _real_
    ones.  Compared with them, we're Playboy bunnies! 
    
    						=maggie 

re: .9
    Compared with them, we're Playboy bunnies! 

I've only dated two Playboy Bunnies (well, one was a Playmate), and
both were stronger feminists than anyone I know from this notesfile.

Martin.

>    ... except for *s*x* ??? 

I give. Asixs? Lsuxg? Esaxy? What _are_ they good for?
	Mez

    I dunno...it doesn't bother me particularly. It reminds me of
    what a former housemate would say to a recalcitrant feline:
    
    "Only dead cats get on the kitchen table" or whatever.
    
    --- jerry

    re.7
      Ann, are you denying that it happens?  Are you saying that the
    white male smoker is NOT being opressed **AT ALL**??  BULL!
    
    My point was that no matter who oyu put in the slogan, it's wrong.
    Be it white male, blacks, women, jews etal.
    
    RE: 9 Maggie,
    I see what you mean.  thank you.  As for the true colours thing,
    it was in reference to the slogan.  THE SLOGAN WAS SHOWING ITS TRUE
    COLOURS, not you.  Kay?
    
    Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    "Smoker"?  Where, pray tell, in this note string was that word
    used before you brought it up in .15?  I used the search command
    and I couldn't find it.
    
    "Smoke" is right.  I asked you a question that began with "Why",
    and you not only don't answer it, you don't even get the question
    right.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  You do realize, she asked darkly, that your reply sounds like
    whining, don't you?

    "Left on!  Get rightie!"
    
    Despite being a right-handed person, I've always been sympathetic
    to the frustration evinced by that.  Offended?  Never.  I *know*
    I haven't done anything to solve the problem.
    
    							Ann B.

    Ho hum...Yet another topic to bicker about... Whatever happened
    to the support idea?  If some people feel that the button had a
    statement to make in their behalf, fine.  I acknowldedge their right
    to feel that way and wear their button.  I don't have to "mince
    words" over whether they are right or wrong because I have my own
    opinions.  Why do we always have to end up with controversial topics
    that turn =wn= into a "fightnet"???  Do they really serve a purpose?
    
    *Sigh* onward to a kinder topic...
    
    Barb

    <--(.19)
    
    Mike, your creativity is a constant source of amazement to me; its
    quality-as-writing varies, but it's always better than I could do.
    
    The only two complaints I have with this one are (1) your logic
    has some lacunae [continuing the classical theme, y'know] and
    (2) I don't think you'd find an -eo ending in a greek name ;')
    
    						=maggie

    I think the Plato system <npi> had a better scheme:  you could only
    delete your entry while it was the last one in the string.
    
    						=maggie

    RE: .22 The previous incarnations of Notes (K-Notes and Notes-11)
    had the same restriction. Somethings I think it was better that
    way too.
    
    			Alfred

    
    Well, it would have been fun to reply to this string if I could
    have understood them, but too many were set hidden.
    
    However, what I read reminded me of the other string I just finished
    - about the "set hidden" controversy (yes, I read through them ALL).
    
    Personally I feel there is a big difference between the group in
    power and the group out of power saying something offensive. I can't
    quite put my finger on it - I guess it's the historical implications.
    It's like you're dismissing as trivial years of oppression. 
    
    There is an instinctual element to this, I know, but this is how I feel:
    
    If I hear a Jewish joke or an anti-woman  joke (being Jewish and
    a women), I get offended. If I hear a black person tell a joke about
    white people (and I have both from comedians and from friends of
    mine) I laugh with them. I'm not saying men should do the same.
    It's just my instinctive reaction. 
    
    Roberta