From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Nov 06 1999 - 23:12:47 MST
On Saturday, November 06, 1999 11:02 AM Natasha Vita-More natasha@natasha.cc
wrote:
> Thank you for posting this Daniel.
You're welcome! I'm glad someone liked it! I thought it was a standing
rule that my posts were to be ignored.:)
> It seems that no matter what prefix added, "feminist" continues to carry
> with it truckloads of "stuff" --
No different from a lot of other words, such as "atheist," "Objectivist,"
"liberal," and "conservative." I'm sure other can add lots more. Lee
Bonnifield once dubbed such things "trance inducing words." People see them
and react according to their preconceived notions. This is why I don't tell
people I'm an atheist right away at parties -- well, depending on the crowd.
> remainders of what didn't work with
> feminism and reminders of what did. Whether or not the word and its load
> have been tarnished, it was once young and with it came a lot of impulses
> of youth as well as mistakes before its maturation. There have been
> individualists feminists (not to be confused with "ifeminists") whose
lives
> and work is significantly referenced without any gender association -- and
> this I favor very much. There are also works by adamant feminists who
have
> added insight, although I do not want to repeat a lunch date I had with
> Betty Friedan some years ago when her obtuse and crusty manner alienated
me
> as well as many other women to her particular plight.
Interesting. I imagine she must be a lonely woman.
> Wendy McElroy is an outrageously wonderful and provoking author and I
think
> she has added intelligently to the works of women in this arena. From her
> early writings on pornography to her recent writings on attitudes, she
> brings to the turf quality and an out-of-the-box thinking. I look forward
> to reading her "controversial speech."
I think "she has added intelligently to the works of" humans "in this
arena.":)
> This past week, I have read and reread lines from Jane Austin's writings.
> Jane Austin's keenness of senses represent issues of individuality and
> intrigue. Even over a hundred or so years (I believe her writing dates
> 1796 - 1817) cannot change the *quality* of presence most men and women
> aspire toward. And even in her writings one has to giggle just a little
> because of the pomposity of manners when taken to an extreme. I think
here
> is a lot to learn from Ms. Austin's early writings (which caught me
> off-guard when I thought I gleaned a bit of Rand in some of the Austin
> character's lines (but Jane Austin did come *before* Rand.)) And, her
work
> did conflict with Romanticism -:)
I must admit, I've not read any Austin, though I liked the movie version of
"Sense and Sensibility."
As for Rand, I guess those of us who have been exposed to her will be making
such comparisons for a long time. No doubt, Rand read Austin and many
others. Dickens, e.g. After all, a lot of her evil characters are like
something Dickens would create, no?
> I'd like a 21st Century Aristoi/Austin sensual sensibility.
How about a timeless one instead?:)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:43 MST