Re: Rohrlich/Zias celibacy

Ruby Rohrlich (rohrlich@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU)
Mon, 8 Jan 1996 21:04:59 -0500

How did your comment get mixed up with that of Zias, then? And how did
your definition of my comment as "radical feminist" have anything to do
with the substance? And why all this should have led to your pessimism
as to our future I don't know. Ruby Rohrlich

On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Anthony Dauer wrote:

> Fascinating ... see I actually agreed with Ruby. My comment was directed
> towards the poster saying it was a "radical feminist reply". Yet some how
> ... without even raising my voice or using caps for that matter I am
> irascible. Nice ten dollar word there, but you should have left it for
> Zias's comment not mine. I have learned something though ... we are doomed
> as a race. I never quite wanted to believe that we would kill ourselves
> off, but I guess it is too obvious a fate for such as we. Allies strung up
> from the nearest tree without so much as an inquiry. As you can see it will
> not matter whether it be man or woman in charge for ignorance and reaction
> go hand-in-hand with no restriction of sex. Happy 12 stepping ... I for one
> had the will power to quit without a crutch ... hhmmm, maybe that's why I'm
> not paranoid as well ... oh well, just a thought. Good luck and whatever
> bless or curse whichever you prefer. I'm Teutonic myself.
> r/Anthony
> At 08:17 PM 01/07/96 -0500, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
> >Denise: I was going to ignore Zias's and Dauer's responses to my comment,
> >considering both to be the typical irascible replies of trigger-ready
> >defenders of male dominance, with whom I'm not interested in
> >communicating. So thanks, Denise, for picking up the gauntlet in such a
> >sane manner. I'm sorry we didn't get to talk at the AAA meeting; the
> >opportunity slipped by too quickly. I hope you have a very good year.
> >Ruby Rohrlich.
> >
> >On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Denise Obrien wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not interested in fomenting a gender/language war but I can't
> >> let pass without comment Joe Zias' and Anthony Dauer's responses to
> >> Ruby Rohrlich's comment re who gets credit for the "mitzva".
> >> As I read it, Zias initially said "it's a mitzva [for the husband]
> >> to have sexual relations with the wife on Friday night..." Phrase in
> >> [ ] implied in original. And Rohrlich replied: "Is it a mitzva [for
> >> the wife] to have sexual relations with the husband on Friday night?"
> >> Again, phrase in [ ] implied in original. Ruby's reply seems to me
> >> to be none of the following: a "radical feminist reply" (feminist maybe,
> >> but nowhere near the tenor of really radical stuff); "snide" or "non-
> >> constructive". I interpret her question to be: is the credit for the
> >> good deed shared or reciprocal or allocated to only one spouse?
> >> Assuming that only the husband could get a mitzva for having sex
> >> with his wife does reflect a rather patriarchal attitude toward
> >> sexuality which would not be surprising given traditional Judeo and
> >> Judeo-Christian attitudes toward gender.....but, of course, that may
> >> not be the implication of the original statement.
> >> So, I have to ask Ruby's question again: can a wife get a mitzva for
> >> having sex with her husband on Friday night?
> >> And, if you can't frame an answer without flaming me, don't bother
> >> to reply. Cheers....Denise O'Brien
> >>
> >> ===========================+++++++++++++++++++===========================
> >> | |
> >> PHILADELPHIA, PA 19122 U.S.A. Tel. (office)215-204-1204 |
> >> ===========================+++++++++++++++++++===========================
> >>
> >
> >