Re: jwelia one last time.

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 03/10/05-12:41:58 AM Z
Message-id: <>

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Sandy King wrote:

> Finally, when Mr. Ptak raised questions about her comments Judy would have
> been much wiser to "cut her losses" with a simple apology, and then shut her
> mouth

Apologize for what? Because a lurker who admitted he didn't know the
circumstances took offense at something HE imagined, imputed to me
meanings I never meant, reacted from HIS prejudices, not mine, and then
presumed to launch a public scolding ?

**I** should apologize???!!! (And who has ever told Sandy, or any man on
this list, to "shut his mouth"?)

Meanwhile, you flunk reading comprehension. The point I made was that
Jewellia had many "persona's" -- in fact that was a major part of her
shtick. Remember? In fact, I got the impression that when s/he spoke at
APIS a few years ago, those personalities were a major (if not THE major)
thrust of her talk.

As for mocking; that's YOUR interpretation. I was summarizing a
trajectory. I have to notice also that you straight white guys criticize
me from the smug reaches of straight America. I live with a very polyglot
group running the gamut of all possibilities, and I don't think it's an
insult to refer to particularities. YOU are the ones who consider the
reference beyond the pale... That's YOUR problem, not mine -- or theirs.

> ... Instead she chose to trot out the same old sad and tired mantra of
> sexism that she has used for years and years to hit some of us males on the
> list over the head with, when it pleased her to do so, by suggesting that Mr.

Since when has this list launched, let alone tolerated, an attack ON ANY
MALE like the ones from you, Ryuji, Ptak, and now Kouklis on me. Name
one! (Also, see above about I should "shut my mouth.") It seems that, at
least on this list. Uppity Woman is ipso facto wicked witch... And YOU,
Sandy, want ME to apologize ??!!

(Of course sexism is by definition unconscious -- I don't suppose you
think: "Here's a chance to bash Uppity Woman." The reflex is directly
through the male prerogative centers, unmediated by higher brain

> Ptak is a sexist because he spoke out against her comments while ignoring the
> comments of males. I see an alternative scenery, i.e. far from being a sexist
> Mt. Ptak simply observed the comments of a limited number of arrogant and
> insensitive human beings

Now you're fabulating -- who are these "arrogant and insensitive human
beings"? Besides me, of course. What did they say? I don't recall them.
Unless you mean the comments today that cheered me on, most, BTW, except
for 3 males... you, Ptak and Kouklis... Kouklis of course takes the
opportunity to pile on, for what he once called my "anti-platinum
attitude" (if you could believe), but you and Ptak seem to decree
Jewellia's condition so ghastly that even mentioning it is "arrogant and

Hello? S/he made a career out of it !

> ... and directed his comments to the person who
> initiated the discussion.

My dear Sandy -- now you flunk both Memory AND Reading Comprehension, I
suppose due to same old, same old mental block. I did NOT "initiate the
discussion." I made a brief, casual answer to a question about Jewellia's
whereabouts. My remark, in its entirety:


Jewelia had a sex change operation & became someone else... that was a few
years ago. S/he may be someone ELSE by now.


Both points are literal public published information. What is so troubling
about them that I am pilloried, denounced, vilified? It's OK for Ptak to
denounce me from HIS imagination and inhibitions, but I'm a Very Bad
Person for briefly stating proudly published facts !!!

If that isn't sexism, what is it?

Is it any wonder so few women challenge this list?

I'd even suggest that Jewellia got away with her act because she was, at
least at the outset, a man. (She'd once been an officer in a submarine,
she said.) Clearly, she enjoyed being the center of attention -- the list
tended to become a circus around her. I quite enjoyed her, too --
otherwise I wouldn't have invited her to do an article... which,
unfortunately, she couldn't/wouldn't complete, as I understand happened in
other situations as well. But that's not this discussion. This discussion
is about YOUR arrogant and insensitive lack of insight into your own

> That is my opinion and you can take it or leave it for all I care. But as far
> as I am concerned this is a black and white issue with no slippery slope.

Yes, sadly, this discussion does seem quite black and white. But your
white is in fact black. And vice versa ... while somehow you manage to
ignore, denigrate and dismiss the majority of posts, which agree with

For which I thank the senders most warmly, though frankly I'm getting fed
up. After all these years I hate to leave the list in a funk, but I'm sick
of being unable to make a casual well-intentioned answer to a question
without all hell breaking loose.

As for apologies -- you, Sandy King, owe me several.

Received on Thu Mar 10 00:42:11 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:00 AM Z CST