Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Stephen Barnard (email@example.com)
Sun, 08 Sep 1996 13:12:42 -0800
Mary Beth Williams wrote:
> In <3232EE07.38C2@megafauna.com> Stephen Barnard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Mary Beth Williams wrote:
> >> In <h1N3kLAWPiMyEwXH@oldcity.demon.co.uk> Shez
> >> <email@example.com> writes:
> >> >
> >So why about Firl's point -- that Bryant doesn't deserve the
> >Will Shez explain the basis for the accusation, despite Byant's clear
> >record? Will Mary Beth Williams explain that while "Amerind" is
> >offensive, "rape apologist" is perfectly OK?
> When did I ever state that *rape apologist* was okay? Please get a
> grip. I only stated that it was unfair to uniformly characterize those
> who follow a PM/PP theoretical framework as willing to view Firl's, or
> Bryant's comments as somehow *acceptable*.
> And how do you come off equating the two terms anyway? Native
> Americans have made it clear that the term *Amerind* is offensive, even
> though we do not argue that the term accurately (though offensively)
> describes people with certain characteristics, in this case, ethnicity.
> Do *rape apologists*, as you term them, accept this the basis for this
> MB Williams
> Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst
You chose to reply flippantly to Firl's complaint about a character
assasination of Bryant. Well, you aren't the only one who can be
offended. I find the Shez's accusation of Bryant to be *far* more
offensive than someone using a term like "Amerind" with no intention to