|
|
Re: Rohrlich/Zias celibacy
Anthony Dauer (jackechs@MAIL.EROLS.COM)
Sun, 7 Jan 1996 22:45:30 -0500
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
>>
>> ===========================+++++++++++++++++++===========================
>> | |
>> | DENISE O'BRIEN D-OBRIEN@TEMPLEVM |
>> | DEPT. OF ANTHROPOLOGY D-OBRIEN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
>> | TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
>> PHILADELPHIA, PA 19122 U.S.A. Tel. (office)215-204-1204 |
>> ===========================+++++++++++++++++++===========================
>>
>
>
|