oh come on, wtfau

[Sean Wilson <krwilson@weir.net>]

Please wtfau, spare me your little attempt to be the male cheerleader
for radical feminism. First, Ledbetter's comment was purely and
completely POLITICAL.  There is nothing "analytical" about advocating
the abolishion of non-exploitative gender-perspective colloqualisms or
other informal diction from our interaction about, of all things,
goddamn rock and roll.  This is a purely moral premise, not an
analytical one. And it is not an uncommon cry from those who share
Ledbetter's perpective. Oh what, you think the term "birds" is
exploitative? Get lost. 
	And wtfau, why would you adopt such an illogical position of "never
speaking for a woman?"  Why not speak for ANYONE when you have adequate
justification, and for NO ONE when you do not.  You're the one, after
all, who wants to be "analytical."
	Finally, wtfau, why do you and the other gender benders keep doing the
same thing: attacking the basis for my premise while not disagreeing
with it. I didn't conduct a goddamn study; I'm not a fucking
sociologist.  All I had was my fine wine, my loud music, and my quest to
meet an angry, rebellious female Who Head. You don't deny, do you, that
women on average are less fanatic about the Who?  You don't deny, do
you, that Indianpolis was poor in comparison to other venues for the
gender mix?  And you don't deny that many women attended the Indianpolis
venue with their rednecked boyfriends, being clueless about the music?
(Oh dear, does the word Redneck offend your southern roots?). And you
don't deny, I assume, that the only way one could make such observations
when NOT having an army of social scientists nor a completed survey
questionaire, is to walk around, drink up, and do his best, do you? If
the birds at the Who show in Indianpolis were hiding from me, fine --
that's ok. But if you don't disagree with the premise, why are you
attacking the justification for it? It's like people are not allowed to
make observations about gender any more. It's like we are in a goddamn
police state.
	Look, males and females are different.  As long as there is no
exploitation in pointing out our differences, there is nothing wrong
with each of us crafting prose from our own perspective.  Look at the
Lillith Fair thing, and the ever-growing contribution that feminist art
is having.  Males are more frequently by this new generation of females
in a light which emphasises male shortcomings or behavior from a female
perspective.  What does the one song call us -- Cowboys ("where have all
the cowboys gone")?  Goddamit wtfau, I'm not a Cowboy -- I hate Cowboys
-- but I didn't see you or Ledbetter coming to my defense over this
little characterization.   As long as the characterizations are not
truly exploitative (like, e.g., "bitches"), let people say whatever they
goddamn want.          
 	Finally, wtfau, your comments abour your five year old are more
telling than you realize. My four and three-fourth year old girl,
Joycelyn, is truly the most special thing in my life. Her favorite songs
are The Real Me, Helpless Dancer, and Under a Raging Moon.  She also
likes what I have told her is the "Instrumental" (meaning, no words)
which is actually Quadrophenia. She makes me surf the net for Who
pictures.  She instantly recognizes Roger Daltrey and asks me to print
the picture for her.  She always asks me how Roger can sing from each
side of the car in Helpless Dancer.  I'm so glad my obsession with
Quadraphenia has rubbed off on her. She's now the coolest 4 year old in
the country.
	By the way, when she stays with her mother, she listens to "I am Woman"
by Hellen Reddy and "A girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do" by Mindy
McCready. By the way, my ex-wife and I, both Lawyers, get along great.