From: keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
Subject: Re: Historical accuracy of Maggie's claims?
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:15:34 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <forb0004.194.726780248@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis ) writes:

>In article <1993Jan11.070930.29047@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker) writes:
>>In <forb0004.192.726708906@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
>>(Eric Forbis ) writes:
>[material deleted]

>>>It was sexism, pure and simple. I know of a good many men who were very 
>>>offended by Maggie's backhanded swipes at the entire gender; if this was 
>>>supposed to be irony or parody, they would have accomplished the same with 
>>>race by references to "niggers", etc.. Lousy episode. Considering their 
>>>founding sequence where lesbians were glorified and men were portrayed as 
>>>emotional cripples by nature, I'm not too surprised. Welcome to feminism in 
>>>action. 

>>Do you want to talk about sexism?  It's where you have a problem with lesbians
>>being glorified.  Heaven forbid that for once in a depiction which men
>>actually
>>might watch (there have been several positive depictions in thing which are 
>>termed as "women's" shows such as "Heartbeat" and the "woman's" movie of 
>>"Fried Green Tomatoes" (which as I saw it, the NEXP show was a complete copy
>>of, therefore while making a positive statement about lesbians, gave us 
>>nothing original or new!).  And just because there are strong women, doesn't
>>mean by any lengths, such as in this episode to which you refer, that men are
>>"emotional cripples by nature" anymore than women are despite strong males.  
>>You wan to talk about sweeping backhand swipes, look at your own post.  
>>You really need to get a grip on your own masculinity so you don't feel 
>>threatened when a woman disagrees with your point, heaven forbid makes

>Watch the damned episode before making public comments about my masculinity, 
>please. 


This episode (the one about the founding of Cicely) I saw.  It, ironically,
enough was on the same night as the historic Murphy Brown episode, which I 
found to be the really amusing part about Dan Quayle's statement! <smile!>


>This was no positive statement about women, strong or otherwise, just many
>generalized abusive statements about men. As far as my _reaction_ being a 
>swipe: then by your rules no one has a right to react to injustices, women 
>included- and since this program was based on Maggie's reaction, you've got 
>a double- standard running I'd like to see explained.

No, I'm not stating anything about your right to reacting to injustices, 
I'm reacting to the description you use, and disagreeing with it. 
Particularly in your generalization..


>Not agreeing with glorifications of lesbianism does NOT make one a sexist; 


No, actually the correct term would be heterosexist.. and this is where I 
find a basis to make my own opinions about your masculinity.  Obviously
I've touched a sore spot..


>you can't coerce people into agreeing with you in this way. Further, the 
>lesbianism as portrayed on the "founding" episode did not confine itself to 
>praising leasbian women; that wouldn't have bothered me. The founding 

However, from the initial way you discussed the episode, that glorification 
of lesbianism wouldn't bother you didn't seem at all apparent.  It was that 
which you attacked along with your believed pseudo-Freudian lecture.  I 
was offended by that.  Perhaps my reaction was a bit strong, but I don't 
think it wasn't justified by what you originally wrote.


>episode had a nice little pseudo-Freudian lecture wherein it is shown that 
>all men are emotional cripples because bonding occurs between the child and 
>mother, and only women sustain this connection. Men becom estranged from 
>their source of love, their femininity, and the only object of a woman's 
>love can be another woman. Of course, the existence of _fathers_ was 
>completely ignored, as well as the possibility of a bond between the 
>father and his kids, and his raising his sons well. It was a _blatant_ 
>denigration of men- watch the episode. Sorry, I'm not going to sit back 
>and accept the crap without comment. 

I didn't see that when I originally viewed the episode.  When it comes 
back in re-run (which because it glorified lesbians, it may not..) I'll
look at it from the perspective which you offer.


>>generalizations (I did not see the episode on the fourth, although I've
>>read plenty about it) about men, or portrays strong women, who happen 
>>to be lesbian, that you find your feathers ruffled.  Strong women say 
>>nothing about the men around them; they simply state about women.  That some 
>>men, such as yourself, seem to take every act, portrayal or thought by a woman
>>as some sort of reflection about their masculinity is very vain to say the
>>least. 

>As above, watch the show before going to the extreme of calling someone's 
>masculinity into doubt. You're dead wrong; the show _didn't_ focus on strong 
>women, but instead put down men as a group. 

It focused on a reaction by a woman.  I'd say, despite certain bouts of 
what might be considered hysteria, that Maggie, Marylin, and Ruthann are all
very strong women.


>---------

>Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
-- 
;^) -Karin
keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from garbage; Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:56:31 EST
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:54:32 EST
From: louise@cc.gatech.edu (Louise Penberthy)
Subject: Climate in Cicely
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
References: <C0M21E.5wE@ccu.umanitoba.ca>