From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #31
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/31
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------"
To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
------------------------------
Content-Type: text/plain
blakes7-d Digest Volume 99 : Issue 31
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
[B7L] Why do women like Avon?
Re: [B7L] The Morrigan in B7
Re: [B7L] Why do women like Avon?
Re: [B7L] Why do men like Avon?
[B7L] Teletubbies and revolutionary commitment
Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
Re: [B7L] The Morrigan in B7
Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Re: [B7L] The Morrigan in B7
Re: [B7L] Stupesud
[B7L] Michael Keating in Doctor Who
Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Re: [B7L] Michael Keating in Doctor Who
Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Re: [B7L] Stupesud
[B7L] Women, B7 and Avon
Re: [B7L] Stupesud
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:35:01 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
Message-ID: <2f08800b.36a08775@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/15/99 11:07:28 PM EST, pussnboots@geocities.com writes:
<< Spudgum? Supersuds?
S-T-U-D....SuperStud.
>>SS's original post has certainly stirred up a storm of controversy, but
I have been having an off-list email discussion of Margaret Atwood's
novel (I had rented the video version) "A Handmaiden's Tale" This book
is about a conservative backlash that basically put women in their
place: barefoot and pregnant. The Handmaidens. The Marthas. The Wives.>>
I enjoyed the book and the film. They depict an honest assessment of what our
society thinks of women......be those thoughts right, or wrong.
<< So I did not find SS's original post outlandish at all. In case you've
forgotten, he postulated that the Federation, post apocolypse, had
restricted women to a realm of home and nurturing children to be non
violent, in an effort to forestall another such apocolypse. In times of
economic recession, or war, or environmental collapse, women have
traditionally been blamed for the trouble, and told to "go to your room
and stay there until I say you can come out." i.e. restricted to kinder,
kitchen, kitch (forget the german word for church)>>
Someone else who sees the light.
<< The Handmaiden's Tale was written in the 1980s when the US religious right,
led by anti-feminist Phyllis Shafly, was crusading to send women back to the
home. Away from "the world of men's work," as SS put it. And without the
"permission" to work, how are women supposed to survive? Eat the babies
men put upon them?>>
Their husbands will provide for them. And if there aren't enough men to go
around, I suppose some will have to double up.
<<Mens work: That is a quaint notion in itself: what, exactly, is men's
work?>>
Anything not included in home management.
<< From the dim dawn of pre-history, women grew the food,
manufactured the clothes, ranched the animals, created the home
furnishings - dishes, bedding, even walls and floors of straw.>>
Exactly......home management.
<< What "work" have men historically done? 1) make spears and strut about
trying
to look important while stabbing at animals, including one another 2)
ferment brews and get drunk 3) chase women and fuck them and make babies
- which the women then "nurture" in their "spare" time.>>
Men propvide food/nourishment, and guidance for the family, as well
protection.....if they are good men. Your view seems to be based on
relationships with too many weak minded, half men examples.
<<My conclusion: if women didn't do "men's work" the human race would
still be - individually - poking sticks into anthills and eating the
resultant delicacies - just like our animal siblings, the chimps. >>
Wrong conclusion....families would be intact, society would thrive.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:40:51 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Message-ID: <c8ad13e5.36a088d3@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/15/99 11:51:13 PM EST, avona@jps.net writes:
<< You may have been breast fed until you were 18, but most of us stopped
before age 2. Even in natural communities, women only breast feed for 4
years. After that, why isn't the emotional capability to nurture all
that important?
>
It's important, but the mother should provide the bulk of it. The man should
tend to his other duties.
> IMHO, an incomplete woman. Having a husband and children are two necessary
> elements to creating a complete woman.....even in B7 times it seems.
That DOES it! Where's my highly complicated toothpick?! I know I
shouldn't bother respoonding to this man's gibberish but-- I DON'T want
kids!!!
I'm sorry.
<< It will not make me complete! It might kill me. I have enough
health problems without having to worry about a pregnancy, and then the
months of insomnia. I have a husband.
You're halfway there. Don't give up hope.
<< I have a cat. I have beautiful books to read, artwork in the process of
creation, a garden to nurture.
I have many ways to express my creative and life-giving side without
adding to overpopulation, burdening my wonderful husband with the
financial weight of having to earn enough for 3 people to live on, all
for the sake of creating a creature that will contribute nothing but
drool to my life for several months before it even begins to be a
rational creature.
>
This is a selfish attitude.
Perhaps you should reconsider. The female body was created for reproduction,
and many women say they would feel incomplete without children.
> << Soolin had her parents killed, and would hunt the writer of this
> mindless drivel down and shoot him. >>
>
> Soolin (though physically very attractive) is not truly representative of a
> real woman.....or at least my definition of a real woman.
<< I cannot imagine that there is one female on this list who would like to
fit your idea of a real woman. Anyone?>>
That is ashame.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:45:20 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Message-ID: <4ce41f64.36a089e0@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/16/99 4:37:53 AM EST, jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl writes:
<< In that case, doing your best to make the world a little better so that
other kids can have a good life is in fact the same as doing your best to
raise your own kids.
I don't want to have children either, not because of any physical reasons,
but because I think there is just a little too much of Avon in me: I am
impatient, not very understanding and just wouldn't be a very good mother. I
no longer feel ashamed of that: other people who would be good mothers, maybe
wouldn't be a very good programmer, which I am. I'll leave the nurturing to my
sister, who wants it and is much better at it than I am, anyway. > >
There is no substitute for having children. Anyone who feels otherwise is
deluding themselves.
> ><< Soolin had her parents killed, and would hunt the writer of this
> > mindless drivel down and shoot him. >>
> >
>> Soolin (though physically very attractive) is not truly representative of
a
>> real woman.....or at least my definition of a real woman.
>I cannot imagine that there is one female on this list who would like to
>fit your idea of a real woman. Anyone?
Not only that, but I no longer read any of Stupesud's postings. I find it
difficult and basically a waste of time to pay attention to someone who in
effect tells me (and any other woman) that he does not respect me and that I
should have no rights whatsoever. I have just deleted all of Studdies postings
without bothering to read them and will continue to do so. >>
I have a great deal of respect for women. I feel they are the foundation that
holds our society together. The problem is they feel the need to join the
workforce and leave their families. No job is more important than that of a
home engineer. Please don't be offended.....I'm only speaking the truth.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:49:11 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: Spudgun@dial.pipex.com, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
Message-ID: <9ab097e5.36a08ac7@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/16/99 6:39:49 AM EST, Spudgun@dial.pipex.com writes:
<< Get to the point SuperStew. All this blatant misogynism and you haven't
once mentioned shagging. The number of times I've come home pissed as a
fart, spent 10 minutes just trying to get through the front door and then
made some pretty romantic advances on my girlfriend only to be turned down
flat are uncountable.>>
Sorry, I don't have that problems. All of my women are very happy to oblige.
<< I wouldn't so much but I do a bloody good impression
of being sober when I'm incapable of speech.
What I want to know is what the federation intends to do about all the
shags I will still be owed in the 25th century. Maybe I should have several
girfriends on a strict rota basis so if my wily charms didn't work on one
of them I could move on to the next. >>
If the Federation allows for men taking on more than one woman to appease
those women who can't find, get, or convinced themselves (tsk, tsk) they don't
need men, it might be legal by that time.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:37:27 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0116083727-b49Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Sat 16 Jan, SupeStud00@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/14/99 7:48:15 PM EST, lcw@dallas.net writes:
>
> <<
> (Is this the same person who opined some time back that the reason so many
> female B7 fans like Avon is because he was a real macho male instead of
> some sensitive wimpy type? I seem to recall the style.) >>
>
> Nope, not me. Though it does make sense. Avon was "macho", for lack of a
> better word....and its the real reason women like him, whether they admit it
I was going to stay out of this one because I'm too darn busy, but what the
heck. Here's my thoughts for what they're worth.
1. I disagree with a fair bit of what Supestud is saying, but I can at last
admire him for staying fairly good natured throughout the debate.
2. From what I recall of the little psychology I've studied, it is essential
that children have an adult to whom they can closely relate. Early studies
thought that it had to be the mother, but later studies showed that any adult
who is close to the child and is willing to give them time and attention will
make a major difference.
Babies thrive better if cuddled, but it doesn't have to be the mother.
I've often suspected that gay men would make very good carers for children, but
have no data to back this up. I have a sneaky suspiction that homosexuality
among men is nature's way of ensuring that extra carers are available for large
families. In evolutionary terms, a gay man might improve the survival chances
of his siblings, nephews and nieces to an extent that would more than compensate
if he had no children of his own.
3. In evolutionary terms, until very recently, wanting to have children wasn't
an evolutionary advantage. Children came along if you had sex, regardless of
whether you actually wanted them or not. Thus, it isn't really surprising that
many women have no desire fo children, although for the majority, the maternal
urge will kick in once the little horrors actually arrive. (again, in
evolutionary terms, wanting to strangle them once you actually have them is
*not* a survival trait)
Nature is very good at looking after herself. There will be no need in the
future to force woman to stay at home to have children. One of two things will
happen. If the desire to have/not have children is genetic, then those who
don't want children will gradually be bred out of the population. If it is
environmental (eg. overpopulation reduces the desire for children, or some other
factor) then we'll either become extinct or else the environment will change.
As populations around the world are either rising or stable, I'm forced to
conclude that working mothers are not a major problem. Indeed they contribute
to the overall economy in ways that probably benefit many of us. (How many
teachers are single women?)
The best way to encourage mothers to stay home and look after their children
rather then going out to work, is to have a tax system that encourages this.
Most working mothers (bar a few high flyers) do it from necessity, not choice.
I'm lucky, my husband earns enough so that I can stay at home with the children
that I chose to have. I guess I'm Supestud's ideal women, but I'm that way
because a. I can afford it and b. That's the way I wanted my life.
4. Getting back to Blake's 7 <grin>. Why woman like Avon. Here I can speak
with authority. Firstly because I'm a woman and secondly because I'm a zine
editor. I *know* what women like about Avon, and I know what they fantasise
about him. Sorry, it isn't the macho bit at all. It's the emotional
vulnerability. Scratch the average Avon fan and you'll find her favourite
episode is 'Rumours of Death'. Look at her favourite reading material and it
usually involves Avon suffering physical or mental harm, undergoing a fair bit
of suffering, needing a large dollop of tender loving care and finally
recovering and having a greater emotional closeness to the carer before. Go and
read the zines if you doubt me.
In short, the best men may be tough on the surface, but they should be like a
marshmallow once you crack that apparantly invulnerable outer layer.
If you think about it, it's logical. The ultimate macho man is useless to a
woman. He may be big and tough, but what use is that unless he is also capable
of deep and abiding love? (because macho man would probably leave his woman
pregnant and barefoot and go away and insemimate half a dozen other women and
abandon them too. Pregnant women need a man who will care for them when they
are vulnerable.)
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7
Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:22:33 PST
From: "Rob Clother" <whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Why do women like Avon?
Message-ID: <19990116132233.8511.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Judith, in response to the one calling himself SupeStud00:
>4. Getting back to Blake's 7 <grin>. Why woman like Avon. Here I
>can speak with authority. Firstly because I'm a woman and secondly
>because I'm a zine editor. I *know* what women like about Avon, and
>I know what they fantasise about him. Sorry, it isn't the macho bit
>at all. It's the emotional vulnerability. Scratch the average Avon
>fan and you'll find her favourite episode is 'Rumours of Death'.
>Look at her favourite reading material and it usually involves Avon
>suffering physical or mental harm, undergoing a fair bit of
>suffering, needing a large dollop of tender loving care and finally
>recovering and having a greater emotional closeness to the carer
>before. Go and read the zines if you doubt me.
[snip]
So, to paraphrase what Judith has said,
1. Women do *not* like Avon purely on account of his machismo;
2. Women do *not* like Avon purely on account of his emotional
vulnerability.
Anyone who claims either (1) or (2) is not seeing the whole picture.
Yes, Avon's strength, ruthlessness and independence may be attractive,
but they are not enough to make the whole person attractive. "Rumours
of Death" is the episode that completed the picture, adding that one
final piece that made Avon truly desirable.
-- Rob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:46:43 PST
From: "Rob Clother" <whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] The Morrigan in B7
Message-ID: <19990116134643.9673.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
>Not so much incapable as not efficient for the task. Men should be
>the hunters, gatherers, and women the home managers. Its a force of
>nature.
"Force of nature." "The way things should be." "The forgotten wisdom
of our ancestors."
I've heard phrases like this time and time again. In my experience,
anyone who really thinks they hold the key to any of these things is
talking drivel, and would benefit from a more rounded view of nature in
general and human nature in particular.
SupeStud00, your view of what women "should" be is purely your own. I
would suggest that it is no more representative of human female nature
than Morrigan, the Celtic warrior goddess. She would be drinking out of
your skull by now, had she met you just a few minutes ago. She was
given the characteristics that define her because the Celts recognised
that particular side of female nature. The nurturer is another side: to
deny or suppress any one, against the wishes of the individual
concerned, is selfish. For a man to refuse his wife access to her
career, and then to neglect his own responsibilities in bringing up his
children, is equally selfish. It also betrays a stunted understanding
of human nature.
You might like the idea of consorting with a woman who spends most of
her life barefoot and pregnant. You're welcome to that -- I'd rather
pick a partner with more of the Morrigan in her, hence my preference of
Servalan over any of the other women in B7. As I've opined already,
she'd make a far better mum than any of the rest of them.
-- Rob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:02:29 +1000
From: vera@c031.aone.net.au
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Why do women like Avon?
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990117000229.00956cd0@mail01.mel.aone.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rob:
>So, to paraphrase what Judith has said,
>
>1. Women do *not* like Avon purely on account of his machismo;
>2. Women do *not* like Avon purely on account of his emotional
>vulnerability.
Why do men like Avon?
Ages and ages ago, someone wrote to this list that Avon was a hero in the
mold of John Wayne. I, among others, leapt in quickly with disagreement.
(Ok, it was raucous derision.) Eventually I did go and watch "Red River", a
John Wayne movie. And he was right. John Wayne, the Wayne of Red River and
The Searchers, was an Avonish hero.
In Red River, Wayne plays a rancher who drives his employees and his
adopted son beyond their limits while pursuing an ambitious goal that is
self-destructive, dangerous and unrealistic. Shades of Travis and Blake,
but mostly Avon. Avon, finding and losing the false Blake. Avon finding and
losing the, differently, false Anna. So here again it seemed to me what
made Avon an interesting and admirable character for the original poster
was the same as what Judith described - the vulnerability under the strength.
>Anyone who claims either (1) or (2) is not seeing the whole picture.
>Yes, Avon's strength, ruthlessness and independence may be attractive,
>but they are not enough to make the whole person attractive. "Rumours
>of Death" is the episode that completed the picture, adding that one
>final piece that made Avon truly desirable.
And do you like or admire or appreciate this piece or not?
Malissa
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 06:27:17 PST
From: "Rob Clother" <whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Why do men like Avon?
Message-ID: <19990116142717.5834.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Malissa:
>>Anyone who claims either (1) or (2) is not seeing the whole picture.
>>Yes, Avon's strength, ruthlessness and independence may be
>>attractive, but they are not enough to make the whole person
>>attractive. "Rumours of Death" is the episode that completed the
>>picture, adding that one final piece that made Avon truly desirable.
>
>And do you like or admire or appreciate this piece or not?
Personally speaking, I don't like Avon at all, and I found his behaviour
in "Rumours of Death" appalling. After what Tarrant and the others had
done for him, his line "Shut up and let me do what I came here to do"
was unpardonable, even allowing for the circumstances. Blake would
never have let him get away with it.
But then, with Blake you've got a more complete man to start off with.
At once, he's stronger and more emotionally developed than Avon. He
doesn't run away from his emotions, or anything else in his life. I
would trust, like and admire Blake -- Avon, I would keep at several
arms' length.
That's my own perspective. Any other male views of Avon?
-- Rob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:35:43 PST
From: "Rob Clother" <whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Teletubbies and revolutionary commitment
Message-ID: <19990116153543.8810.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Neil, in response to my statement that even the Teletubbies are
political:
>And that at least I would agree with (the everything, I mean, though
>the insidious indoctrination of innocent children by the antics of
>the decadent lickspittle capitalist lackey Teletubbies falls within
>the umbrella of 'everything').
Whereas I would say that "Teletubbies" warns little children what might
happen to them when their will is subjugated by the evils of communist
dictatorship. Forcibly collectivised, drugged and brainwashed into
endless repetition of mindless Party slogans like "Eh Oh" and "Big
Hugs". Denied an intelligent, rational voice, or a genuine will of
their own. (Come on, if you were a Teletubby, wouldn't you want to give
Tinky Winky a kicking?)
But, er, either way, the Teletubbies are political.
>Rob missed out one crucial episode from his list - Star One, the
>ultimate test of revolutionary comitment.
I'll have to wait until January 25 to pass comment on that one...
-- Rob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:12:21 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk, Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
Message-ID: <b597526e.36a0ba65@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/16/99 8:06:30 AM EST, Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk writes:
<< I was going to stay out of this one because I'm too darn busy, but what the
heck. Here's my thoughts for what they're worth.
<< 1. I disagree with a fair bit of what Supestud is saying, but I can at
last
admire him for staying fairly good natured throughout the debate.>>
Why thank you.
<<2. From what I recall of the little psychology I've studied, it is
essential
that children have an adult to whom they can closely relate. Early studies
thought that it had to be the mother, but later studies showed that any adult
who is close to the child and is willing to give them time and attention will
make a major difference.>>
I disagree with studies. There is, IMHO, a spiritual link between biological
mother and child, that cannot be replaced. When mothers do not honor this
link, we get deficient persons, ala Avon and Servalan.
<<Babies thrive better if cuddled, but it doesn't have to be the mother.>>
But its better if its the mother.
<<I've often suspected that gay men would make very good carers for children,
but
have no data to back this up.>>
Sorry, I definitely don't suvscribe to this view. Homosexuality is in
complete contradiction with the natural family.
<< I have a sneaky suspiction that homosexuality
among men is nature's way of ensuring that extra carers are available for
large
families.>>
Homosexuality, IMHO, has little to do with "nature"
.<< In evolutionary terms, a gay man might improve the survival chances
of his siblings, nephews and nieces to an extent that would more than
compensate
if he had no children of his own.>>
I disagree.
<< 3. In evolutionary terms, until very recently, wanting to have children
wasn't
an evolutionary advantage. Children came along if you had sex, regardless of
whether you actually wanted them or not. Thus, it isn't really surprising
that
many women have no desire fo children, although for the majority, the
maternal
urge will kick in once the little horrors actually arrive. (again, in
evolutionary terms, wanting to strangle them once you actually have them is
*not* a survival trait) >>
LOL!!!! The reproductive drive is a natural and necessary part of the human
condition. Any male or female who has convinced themselves they do not
reproduce is seriously deluding themselves.
<<Nature is very good at looking after herself. There will be no need in the
future to force woman to stay at home to have children. One of two things
will
happen. If the desire to have/not have children is genetic, then those who
don't want children will gradually be bred out of the population.>>
Which may be a good thing for the rest of us.
<< If it is environmental (eg. overpopulation reduces the desire for
children, or some other factor) then we'll either become extinct or else the
environment will change.
As populations around the world are either rising or stable, I'm forced to
conclude that working mothers are not a major problem.>>
I believe they are a big problem as they are neglecting their naturalk roles
as mothers for the unnatural role of female bread winner.
<< Indeed they contribute
to the overall economy in ways that probably benefit many of us. (How many
teachers are single women?)>>
Very few. Teaching is more conducive to family as women are home with the
children in the evenings and weekends and holidays. But still no replacement
for a mother who is at home 100% of the time.
<< The best way to encourage mothers to stay home and look after their
children
rather then going out to work, is to have a tax system that encourages
this.>>
Agreed.
<< Most working mothers (bar a few high flyers) do it from necessity, not
choice.
I'm lucky, my husband earns enough so that I can stay at home with the
children
that I chose to have.>>
You sound like a complete woman. Fulfilled, etc. Do you look good in
stiletto heels?
<< I guess I'm Supestud's ideal women, but I'm that way
because a. I can afford it and b. That's the way I wanted my life.>>
The way all ladies should want their lives.
<< 4. Getting back to Blake's 7 <grin>. Why woman like Avon. Here I can
speak
with authority. Firstly because I'm a woman and secondly because I'm a zine
editor. I *know* what women like about Avon, and I know what they fantasise
about him. Sorry, it isn't the macho bit at all. It's the emotional
vulnerability.>>
He's no wimp. Avon has little emotional vulnerability.
<< Scratch the average Avon fan and you'll find her favourite
episode is 'Rumours of Death'. Look at her favourite reading material and it
usually involves Avon suffering physical or mental harm, undergoing a fair
bit
of suffering, needing a large dollop of tender loving care and finally
recovering and having a greater emotional closeness to the carer before. Go
and
read the zines if you doubt me.>>
All fantasies involving Avon.
<< In short, the best men may be tough on the surface, but they should be like
a
marshmallow once you crack that apparantly invulnerable outer layer.>>
You mean wimps?
<< If you think about it, it's logical. The ultimate macho man is useless to
a
woman. He may be big and tough, but what use is that>>
Sex.
<< unless he is also capable
of deep and abiding love? (because macho man would probably leave his woman
pregnant and barefoot and go away and insemimate half a dozen other women and
abandon them too.>>
This is a stereotype. I have protected sex with all of my women.
<< Pregnant women need a man who will care for them when they
are vulnerable.) >>
And I care for all of mine.
Dexter Dice Clay
(The Diceman)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:18:42 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] The Morrigan in B7
Message-ID: <295e3c62.36a0bbe2@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/16/99 8:48:18 AM EST, whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com
writes:
<< >Not so much incapable as not efficient for the task. Men should be
>the hunters, gatherers, and women the home managers. Its a force of
>nature.
<< "Force of nature."
YES!!
<< "The way things should be."
YES!!
<< "The forgotten wisdom
of our ancestors.">>
YES!!!!!
<< I've heard phrases like this time and time again. In my experience,
anyone who really thinks they hold the key to any of these things is
talking drivel, and would benefit from a more rounded view of nature in
general and human nature in particular.>>
Anyone who doesn't understand my view is, quite simply, lost.
<< SupeStud00, your view of what women "should" be is purely your own. I
would suggest that it is no more representative of human female nature
than Morrigan, the Celtic warrior goddess. She would be drinking out of
your skull by now, had she met you just a few minutes ago.>>
Then she is no real woman. A real woman, upon meeting me, would probably
blush, then attempt to kiss me and fullfill her natural drive to reproduce.
Its a force of nature.
<< She was
given the characteristics that define her because the Celts recognised
that particular side of female nature.>>
I don't know much about the Celts, but from what you are telling me, they
didn't know women.
<< The nurturer is another side: to
deny or suppress any one, against the wishes of the individual
concerned, is selfish. >>
No, its natural.
<< For a man to refuse his wife access to her
career, and then to neglect his own responsibilities in bringing up his
children, is equally selfish.>>
Agreed. A man should allow his wife to be the best home manager that she can
be, and he should share in raising those children to the fullest, allowinh her
to nurture and providing the "food on the table" and "shelter over their
heads" so to speak. The perfect partnership.
<< It also betrays a stunted understanding
of human nature.>>
No, it doesn't.
<< You might like the idea of consorting with a woman who spends most of
her life barefoot and pregnant. You're welcome to that -- I'd rather
pick a partner with more of the Morrigan in her, hence my preference of
Servalan over any of the other women in B7.>>
Well, Servalan did look good in Stiletto heels, and probably even better in a
nightie.
<< As I've opined already,
she'd make a far better mum than any of the rest of them. >>
No, she wouldn't, unless she retired and went home to have kids.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:40:44 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Message-ID: <002c01be416f$2a01f820$a31cac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jacqueline wrote:
>Not only that, but I no longer read any of Stupesud's postings. I find it
difficult and basically a waste of time to pay attention to someone who in
effect tells me (and any other woman) that he does not respect me and that I
should have no rights whatsoever. I have just deleted all of Studdies
postings without bothering to read them and will continue to do so.
From now on I'm doing likewise, and I recommend that other list members
seriously consider doing so too. If Suddie-poos is so super 'he' wouldn't
feel any need to lurk behind a pseudonym. If he can't grow up, he should
shut up. If he can't do either, he can just fuck off.
If this wanker's for real, we should do all we can to satisfy his craving
for rejection. By ignoring him.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:04:33 -0600
From: Lisa Williams <lcw@dallas.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Message-Id: <199901161706.LAA21619@mail.dallas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Neil Faulkner wrote:
>>From now on I'm doing likewise, and I recommend that other list members
>seriously consider doing so too.
And don't forget, folks, that most email programs these days do support
killfiles. You can have your mailer route all of StupeDud's messages
directly to the trash, with no fuss or bother. This is usually the best
procedure to follow for flamebaiters.
- Lisa
_____________________________________________________________
Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@rsc.raytheon.com
Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/
New Riders of the Golden Age: http://www.warhorse.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:10:09 PST
From: "Rob Clother" <whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] The Morrigan in B7
Message-ID: <19990116171012.19888.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
SupeStud00 (on his own ideas):
><< "The forgotten wisdom
> of our ancestors.">>
>
>YES!!!!!
Evidence?
-- Rob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:12:14 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: N.Faulkner@tesco.net, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Message-ID: <c84b182.36a0c86e@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/16/99 11:50:32 AM EST, N.Faulkner@tesco.net writes:
<<
From now on I'm doing likewise, and I recommend that other list members
seriously consider doing so too. If Suddie-poos is so super 'he' wouldn't
feel any need to lurk behind a pseudonym. If he can't grow up, he should
shut up. If he can't do either, he can just fuck off.
I think you're confusing your dislike of my argument for a dislike of me. I
respect people even ehen they disgaree with me. Why can't you do the same?
My name is Dexter Clay. My profile is open to any AOL member who would like
it. There must be other AOL subscribers to this list and if they wish, they
can post it. I'm hiding nothing. In fact, I'm probably more honest than most
people you meet.
<< If this wanker's for real, we should do all we can to satisfy his craving
for rejection. By ignoring him. >>
Well, there can be no healthy debate with this attitude.....I welcome debate
and discussion with anyone who wishes to disagree with me and can defend their
position. And I am grateful for being allowed to post to the list.
Dexter Dice Clay
The Diceman Cometh.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1999 18:16:17 +0100
From: Calle Dybedahl <calle@lysator.liu.se>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Michael Keating in Doctor Who
Message-ID: <uspv8fgmu6.fsf@sara.lysator.liu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
As I write this, BBC Prime is showing a Doctor Who episode with
Micheal Keating in it. There's also a girl who seems to be played by
the same actress who did Hanna in "Shadow". Just out of curiosity,
which DW episode is it? I didn't see the beginning, unfortunately.
--
Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se
Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:15:28 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: lcw@dallas.net, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Message-ID: <fa68c003.36a0c930@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/16/99 12:09:31 PM EST, lcw@dallas.net writes:
<< And don't forget, folks, that most email programs these days do support
killfiles. You can have your mailer route all of StupeDud's messages
directly to the trash, with no fuss or bother. This is usually the best
procedure to follow for flamebaiters. >>
But I'm not flame baiting. Why do you guys assume that someone with a
differeing opinion is looking to cause trouble? I haven't name called or used
profanity in anyway. All I've done is presented my view, as connected to B7.
Don't we have that right here?
And don't we have the right to disagree with one another and still respect
that disagreement.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:28:54 -0600
From: Lisa Williams <lcw@dallas.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Michael Keating in Doctor Who
Message-Id: <199901161725.LAA23355@mail.dallas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Calle Dybedahl wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, which DW episode is it?
He was in one called "The Sun Makers".
- Lisa
_____________________________________________________________
Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@rsc.raytheon.com
Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/
New Riders of the Golden Age: http://www.warhorse.com/
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1999 18:30:33 +0100
From: Calle Dybedahl <calle@lysator.liu.se>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Message-ID: <usognzgm6e.fsf@sara.lysator.liu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
SupeStud00@aol.com writes:
> I welcome debate and discussion with anyone who wishes to disagree
> with me and can defend their position.
Please go and do it somewhere where it's appreciated. The relevance of
your postings to the TV series "Blake's 7" is vague in the extreme,
and reading your rants isn't particularly interesting.
--
Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se
Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:35:59 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: calle@lysator.liu.se, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Message-ID: <df263485.36a0cdff@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/16/99 12:31:50 PM EST, calle@lysator.liu.se writes:
<<
> I welcome debate and discussion with anyone who wishes to disagree
> with me and can defend their position.
Please go and do it somewhere where it's appreciated. The relevance of
your postings to the TV series "Blake's 7" is vague in the extreme,
and reading your rants isn't particularly interesting. >>
My post and arguements are directly tied into Blakes 7 discussion. Need I
point out the number of off topic posts that appear on this list every day? I
will attempt to make future posts more closely related to B7.
For example, how would Avon handle persons who disagree with him and want him
silenced?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:14:40 EST
From: Sestina2@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: Sestina2@aol.com
Subject: [B7L] Women, B7 and Avon
Message-ID: <d19118a0.36a0d710@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Two brief thoughts:
1. Regarding SupeStud's comments on women:
Reading through the postings of comments by SS and those in response
by many others on the list, I find all the responses sadly lacking in the
ability to distinguish between biological and social roles. The two are not
the same. Biologically, women are capable of reproduction. But it is not so
much nature as society that confines women to the sphere of the domestic, to
activities relating to the care and nurturance of children and to performing
all matters of the domestic. Simply put, there is no gene within the female
makeup for nurturance. The kind of nurturance we see with the family of
modern and even pre-modern times has more to do with a division of labor, a
method of organizing work in society based on gender. Any such division of
labor -- like men do the hunting and women do the gathering, etc. -- is
strictly social and not biological in nature.
I think this distinction is crucial. If the reason women are devalued
particularly in most Western societies has to do with their role as caregivers
-- a role that is by society's standards largely one of unpaid labor (I mean
people don't consider household work as work at all, not in the sense of men's
paid labor...and of course women don't get paid for housework because it
should be part of their genetic makeup and biological destiny!) then we are
talking about the social division of labor in society. And as long as we talk
about the social -- hey society can always be changed by human agency. But if
we argue that these roles are natural biological ones, then we have a lot less
agency in terms of affecting change. I find SS comments to be highly typical
of just this kind of dangerous confusion -- the complete justification of
unequal socialized gender roles by saying these roles are biological, or
rooted in nature. This is what is often referred to as the act of
"naturalizing."
Addendum to Point #1 regarding the SupeStud debate: People let's move on.
Most of what SS has said has rested on that all too familiar phrase "in my
humble opinion." Okay, but hey, I'd like to see some evidence and just
"disagreeing" with certiain more scientific studies because one doesn't agree
is not going to raise or deepen the level of debate. How about letting this
topic go out the nearest airlock.....Now onto other stuff...
Point 2: Matters Avon.
Yes, indeed I can see the validity of Judith's comments about what women
find so attractive about Avon. I think she is right on target about the
"Rumours of Death" phenomenon. We (those who love all things Avon) want to
see some kind of crack in that cold, tough, exterior. We want to see some
small glimpse of the deep stores of emotional vulnerability Avon has at his
core, thus showing his cold surface behavior to be nothing more than an
impressive performance of calculated self-control --a containment of the deep
emotional currents shifting around in his core being. What I've found most
alluring about Avon's character is precisely all that passion bottled up on
the surface -- not so much that he can so easily dominate others ("I am the
dominant male!") but that most of his efforts go toward attempting to dominant
himself, his own feelings, and passions. As a female fan, I find myself
wanting to get passed that steely surface to get to the core of his messy
emotional vulnerability. And this seems to me why Avon figures so
predominantly in female-authored Slash; for, these stories depict at least on
a sexual level the penetration of Avon that it seems we all yearn for. Just
some random thoughts......
I am a serious Avon fan -- have always been -- and have never been
seriously tempted by the oh so beautiful Tarrant. But I also sense that I
like Avon so much precisely because he epitomizes the condition that so many
of us, male and female, exist in late-capitalist Western societies: We are
completely alienated from others as well as from the deepest parts of
ourselves, our own humanity. We see this in Avon's desire to be the lone
individualist while at the same time he is part and parcel of the larger
crew/collective. That desire to hold oneself apart from others, to close
oneself off from the affections of others is an extreme act of profound
alienation -- one that speaks volumes about the fear of hurt and betrayal that
"opening up" potentially ensues. And of course, Avon can't play the lone
individualist to the end, can he? Just the possibility that he could be
betrayed by Blake was enough to make him lose it bigtime and to vent some of
that passion and deep connection he had for and with Blake as a very
dangerous, murderous anger.
Perhaps all of this is just to say, I am so taken with Avon's character
because he in no small degree is like me, like all of us, I believe. Okay,
but I'm also a bit ashamed of my admiring one who is so cold and steely, so
determined to emotionally withhold from others. I mean, if Avon was a real
guy working in my office, yes I'd be attracted to him, but gee...his outward
demeanor, even once we existed in a romantic relationship, would be torture to
me...All those sharp edges....Really, ladies, do we really want a real-life
counterpart to Avon in our hearts and our beds? Wouldn't all the effort to
cut through the surface layer of ice wound and crack our very souls as well.
This guy in some essential ways may bear too close a resemblance to one SS and
ladies, this would definitely not be good for any of us.
Sorry for the long post.
Ses
Note to Neil: SupeStud....SS......Tanith Lee. Any connection do you think?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 18:32:06 -0000
From: "Jenni -Alison" <Jenni-Alison@dial.pipex.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Stupesud
Message-Id: <199901161818.TAA29390@samantha.lysator.liu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil Wrote:
> << If this wanker's for real, we should do all we can to satisfy his
craving
> for rejection. By ignoring him. >>
Yup. It's incredibly unusual for me to want to killfile anyone, but I
totally agree.
Stuporspud wrote
>
> Well, there can be no healthy debate with this attitude.....I welcome
debate
> and discussion with anyone who wishes to disagree with me and can defend
their
> position. And I am grateful for being allowed to post to the list.
From the posts I've seen you respond to you aren't indulging in anything
like a debate. Others are posting reasoned arguments with historical,
sociological or other forms of evidence and you're responding with your own
gut instincts. While your opinions are as valid as anyone else's (and
following your usual style of response to mails you'll probably put
something like a "thank you" here) you seem incapable of reading or
considering anyone else's. This means any debate is pointless - you can't
convince us because you have no data, just unsubstantiated opinion and we
can't convince you because you aren't listening. Thus any continued
interaction would purely be for humour value, and this joke has run it's
course.
Vila "I'm entitled to my opinion"
AVON: "It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is
irritating"
Jenni
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #31
*************************************