I would actually like to be removed from this list from this point forward;
I hear distress from both perspectives and feel saddened that this is being
played out on a public list serve. I wish everyone peace and good health and
wish to bow out as this was not what I signed up for.
Best wishes
Lyn
_____
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Linda J. Graham
Sent: 16 June 2006 22:40
To: Mailing-list
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Foucault-L] request for moderation
I agree with Nathaniel - public slanging matches make list-serves scary
places. Certainly they discourage those newer to Foucault's work from
saying anything at all.
Whether we agree or disagree - can we do it respectfully? Besides we're all
members of this list because of a common interest, are we not?
Cheers,
Linda
Linda J. Graham
Centre for Learning Innovation
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Graham,_Linda.html
CRICOS No 00213J
----- Original Message -----
From: Nathaniel Roberts <mailto:npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Mailing-list <mailto:foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 6:31 AM
Subject: [Foucault-L] request for moderation
Dear All,
I realize this is not a moderated list, but I would also like to humbly
register the opinion that post such as Sue's, as well as Elise's response,
are wildly off-topic --whatever other merits they might have.
I have no desire to silence anyone, and appreciate that the issues that they
are addressing are both intense and important. But it might make for a more
productive exchange if any further posts along these lines would attempt to
relate the discussion more explicitly to the ideas of Michel Foucault.
Whether doing so will be of any personal use to Sue or Elise, I cannot say.
But it am certain that this would allow put your experiences and insights
into a context that the rest of us will be able to learn much from.
Respectfully,
Nate Roberts
On 6/16/06, elise thorburn <elise@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Sue.
I oscillate between feeling sympathy with your situation and feeling enraged
at how foolish you make yourself out to be in your repsonses to a)
everything I post to the list, and b)anything that has the faintest wiff of
"feminism" associated with it.
You claim to write well, and yet fall into the same traps that the
Conservative right would use to attack the same people you are attacking. As
a white woman, I think you are in no position to make claims that "black
people can make it to the top" and thus women and men are being pushed to
the bottom. I also think the claim that women can "make it to the top"
ignores plenty of tangible evidence that they, in fact, still cannot.
As well, I wish you would cease with your judgements of me personally, which
have aboslutely no basis in reality. You ask in an earlier post whether I
got into university due to my husband or father, and in this post claim that
I get by on my "youthful sexual attractiveness" and/or money. I do not
intend to reveal any of my personal details to you, nor have I in the past,
so your specious personal assumptions betray the dishonesty in your claims
of being a good writer who is discriminated against based on ideology alone.
If you cannot even make an arguement without reverting to assumptions about
my (a complete stranger's) personal life, appearance and class status, I
place a great deal of scepticism on your claims of writerly ability.
I would ask you to re-examine the comments made regarding your research and
to reflect on why these comments would be made. Perhaps if you were willing
to incoroporate criticisms, or respond to them without ad hominem attacks, I
for one would be more willing to take seriously your comaplints about an
admittedly at times biased system. We all have said or written things that
others do not like. To claim that all negative responses to your work on the
Montreal Massacre are due to some Feminist Illuminati trying desperately to
maintain a power block from the likes of working class men is, frankly,
riduclous. It is not always the people in power who disagree with
controversial work. In fact, many times it is the most disenfranchised who
respond negatively to claims and statements such as yours, not because they
HAVE power, but because they are constantly having elements of power wielded
over the,
Finally, I do not take kindly to the suggestions that I have "won" (as in I
personally or "the feminists" as you continually refer to this diverse
movement). I do not think I have "won" anything, and your constant,
unrelenting use of the homogenous term "the feminists" and continued,
unreasonable and completely out of the blue attacks on me - which have been
going on for over 2 months now, since I first posted anything on the list
and which I must assume began due to the mere fact that I have a female name
- make me convinced that you are either delusional or merely a
conservative. Same difference really.
Please cease attacking me and making specious comments about my
intelligence, attractiveness, sexual orientation and percieved class status
to the whole list. I am willing to take up these issues with you in private,
though I must admit, I am more than a little tired of this strange and
unrequested debate.
Can you explain to me why I have been singled out for attack?
Yours in the struggle,
elise
"old girls" network at work. And no one had a voice in it.
>
>I write, and I write well. Any supposed lack of ability is not an issue. I
am not permitted to discuss what happened at the university here where I
first began a PhD and ws then pushed out. Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, if there was
a problem it had to have been me, and not the professors. But I'll tell you,
the women are just as bad as the men.
>
>Marc Lepine was fucked by an unafair system, and it's happening to me.
There's nothing a person can do if people at the top take it into their
heads I will not be allowed to use my skills and abilities. Marc lepine
should not have killed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT WHAT SHOULD HE HAVE DONE.
>
>Please do not come back with any condescending comments, like make a formal
complaint, and other idiotic things. I realize you can make me appear to be
the one at fault (just as Marc Lepine was made the scapegoat) . It's not
difficult when you have the credibility and I have none, and you have the
money, the youthful sexual attractiveness, the middle class status, and so
on, that is desired.
>
>I live in despair, treated by my community as as lesser human being, since
being pushed out by Essex (yes, Rupert), I just got your post. When I went
to Essex their standards were low. And they have raised them, I'm sure, in
some ways, but they have also pretty much destroyed my life.
>
>I realize I can speak truths and not be heard, but why make accusations
now. I only wanted to complete my PhD degree, at Essex, where I had been
invited to come. When I say they destroyed my life I mean they started the
process which would lead to me being rejected for jobs (ah ha - something
happened at Essex, it couldn't have been the professors, it must have been
this woman), and at other universities I applied to to do the PhD.
>
>I have applied to do a PhD again, but there's no reason to think athis
point it will be accepted. There's too much in my past, and I have doubts
about any potential supervisor who makes the wild claim that he is judging
my proposal based on its merits. If I'm wrong, then the world will be a
better place. But there simply is no reason to think that that could be
true.
>
>And that's how they get ya, you see. they keep you hoping, and keep you
silent, waiting. Well, I've waited ten fucking years. I don't stand a chance
now of ever gettting out of debt. I am 60 years old. I don't stand a chance
of doing what I had hoped to do.
>
>You win, Elise - you and the feminists at Western and the activists in
London and wherever else can all have a great time toaking about inequality,
and those hateful people like Marc Lepine and me, student name Sue Fulham.
Tell them, I can't keep writing and writing and not be heard.
>
>Sue McPherson
>Flat 2 Hannah Court
>St Botolphs Church Walk
>Colchester. CO2 7EE
>Tel: 01206 540097
>Email: sue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com
> <http://SAMcPherson.homestead.com/homepage.html>
http://SAMcPherson.homestead.com/homepage.html
> <http://www.DiversityinRetirement.net>
http://www.DiversityinRetirement.net
>http://diversityinretirement.homestead.com/DMR/mrdilemma.html
<http://diversityinretirement.homestead.com/DMR/mrdilemma.html>
> <http://www.MontrealMassacre.net> http://www.MontrealMassacre.net
>http://woodstockYWCA57to64.homestead.com
> <http://EmpressofFrance.homestead.com>
http://EmpressofFrance.homestead.com
>
_____
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
I hear distress from both perspectives and feel saddened that this is being
played out on a public list serve. I wish everyone peace and good health and
wish to bow out as this was not what I signed up for.
Best wishes
Lyn
_____
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Linda J. Graham
Sent: 16 June 2006 22:40
To: Mailing-list
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Foucault-L] request for moderation
I agree with Nathaniel - public slanging matches make list-serves scary
places. Certainly they discourage those newer to Foucault's work from
saying anything at all.
Whether we agree or disagree - can we do it respectfully? Besides we're all
members of this list because of a common interest, are we not?
Cheers,
Linda
Linda J. Graham
Centre for Learning Innovation
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Graham,_Linda.html
CRICOS No 00213J
----- Original Message -----
From: Nathaniel Roberts <mailto:npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Mailing-list <mailto:foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 6:31 AM
Subject: [Foucault-L] request for moderation
Dear All,
I realize this is not a moderated list, but I would also like to humbly
register the opinion that post such as Sue's, as well as Elise's response,
are wildly off-topic --whatever other merits they might have.
I have no desire to silence anyone, and appreciate that the issues that they
are addressing are both intense and important. But it might make for a more
productive exchange if any further posts along these lines would attempt to
relate the discussion more explicitly to the ideas of Michel Foucault.
Whether doing so will be of any personal use to Sue or Elise, I cannot say.
But it am certain that this would allow put your experiences and insights
into a context that the rest of us will be able to learn much from.
Respectfully,
Nate Roberts
On 6/16/06, elise thorburn <elise@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Sue.
I oscillate between feeling sympathy with your situation and feeling enraged
at how foolish you make yourself out to be in your repsonses to a)
everything I post to the list, and b)anything that has the faintest wiff of
"feminism" associated with it.
You claim to write well, and yet fall into the same traps that the
Conservative right would use to attack the same people you are attacking. As
a white woman, I think you are in no position to make claims that "black
people can make it to the top" and thus women and men are being pushed to
the bottom. I also think the claim that women can "make it to the top"
ignores plenty of tangible evidence that they, in fact, still cannot.
As well, I wish you would cease with your judgements of me personally, which
have aboslutely no basis in reality. You ask in an earlier post whether I
got into university due to my husband or father, and in this post claim that
I get by on my "youthful sexual attractiveness" and/or money. I do not
intend to reveal any of my personal details to you, nor have I in the past,
so your specious personal assumptions betray the dishonesty in your claims
of being a good writer who is discriminated against based on ideology alone.
If you cannot even make an arguement without reverting to assumptions about
my (a complete stranger's) personal life, appearance and class status, I
place a great deal of scepticism on your claims of writerly ability.
I would ask you to re-examine the comments made regarding your research and
to reflect on why these comments would be made. Perhaps if you were willing
to incoroporate criticisms, or respond to them without ad hominem attacks, I
for one would be more willing to take seriously your comaplints about an
admittedly at times biased system. We all have said or written things that
others do not like. To claim that all negative responses to your work on the
Montreal Massacre are due to some Feminist Illuminati trying desperately to
maintain a power block from the likes of working class men is, frankly,
riduclous. It is not always the people in power who disagree with
controversial work. In fact, many times it is the most disenfranchised who
respond negatively to claims and statements such as yours, not because they
HAVE power, but because they are constantly having elements of power wielded
over the,
Finally, I do not take kindly to the suggestions that I have "won" (as in I
personally or "the feminists" as you continually refer to this diverse
movement). I do not think I have "won" anything, and your constant,
unrelenting use of the homogenous term "the feminists" and continued,
unreasonable and completely out of the blue attacks on me - which have been
going on for over 2 months now, since I first posted anything on the list
and which I must assume began due to the mere fact that I have a female name
- make me convinced that you are either delusional or merely a
conservative. Same difference really.
Please cease attacking me and making specious comments about my
intelligence, attractiveness, sexual orientation and percieved class status
to the whole list. I am willing to take up these issues with you in private,
though I must admit, I am more than a little tired of this strange and
unrequested debate.
Can you explain to me why I have been singled out for attack?
Yours in the struggle,
elise
"old girls" network at work. And no one had a voice in it.
>
>I write, and I write well. Any supposed lack of ability is not an issue. I
am not permitted to discuss what happened at the university here where I
first began a PhD and ws then pushed out. Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, if there was
a problem it had to have been me, and not the professors. But I'll tell you,
the women are just as bad as the men.
>
>Marc Lepine was fucked by an unafair system, and it's happening to me.
There's nothing a person can do if people at the top take it into their
heads I will not be allowed to use my skills and abilities. Marc lepine
should not have killed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT WHAT SHOULD HE HAVE DONE.
>
>Please do not come back with any condescending comments, like make a formal
complaint, and other idiotic things. I realize you can make me appear to be
the one at fault (just as Marc Lepine was made the scapegoat) . It's not
difficult when you have the credibility and I have none, and you have the
money, the youthful sexual attractiveness, the middle class status, and so
on, that is desired.
>
>I live in despair, treated by my community as as lesser human being, since
being pushed out by Essex (yes, Rupert), I just got your post. When I went
to Essex their standards were low. And they have raised them, I'm sure, in
some ways, but they have also pretty much destroyed my life.
>
>I realize I can speak truths and not be heard, but why make accusations
now. I only wanted to complete my PhD degree, at Essex, where I had been
invited to come. When I say they destroyed my life I mean they started the
process which would lead to me being rejected for jobs (ah ha - something
happened at Essex, it couldn't have been the professors, it must have been
this woman), and at other universities I applied to to do the PhD.
>
>I have applied to do a PhD again, but there's no reason to think athis
point it will be accepted. There's too much in my past, and I have doubts
about any potential supervisor who makes the wild claim that he is judging
my proposal based on its merits. If I'm wrong, then the world will be a
better place. But there simply is no reason to think that that could be
true.
>
>And that's how they get ya, you see. they keep you hoping, and keep you
silent, waiting. Well, I've waited ten fucking years. I don't stand a chance
now of ever gettting out of debt. I am 60 years old. I don't stand a chance
of doing what I had hoped to do.
>
>You win, Elise - you and the feminists at Western and the activists in
London and wherever else can all have a great time toaking about inequality,
and those hateful people like Marc Lepine and me, student name Sue Fulham.
Tell them, I can't keep writing and writing and not be heard.
>
>Sue McPherson
>Flat 2 Hannah Court
>St Botolphs Church Walk
>Colchester. CO2 7EE
>Tel: 01206 540097
>Email: sue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com
> <http://SAMcPherson.homestead.com/homepage.html>
http://SAMcPherson.homestead.com/homepage.html
> <http://www.DiversityinRetirement.net>
http://www.DiversityinRetirement.net
>http://diversityinretirement.homestead.com/DMR/mrdilemma.html
<http://diversityinretirement.homestead.com/DMR/mrdilemma.html>
> <http://www.MontrealMassacre.net> http://www.MontrealMassacre.net
>http://woodstockYWCA57to64.homestead.com
> <http://EmpressofFrance.homestead.com>
http://EmpressofFrance.homestead.com
>
_____
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list