|
|
Post by Flatypus on Mar 25, 2009 14:14:56 GMT
Hysterical, yes, that is something we associate with women... but I know men who get into flaps so think it can be used for either sex. I tend to think of Plath as having what my mother used to describe as an "artistic temperament." "Artistic temperament" - now that is damning with faint praise. Of course Hysteria was more expected and therefore allowed (if not even encouraged) in females while males were more likely to get a sharp "Pull yourself together" (As Terry Pratchett remarked of a New Agey character "Giving the impression that some parts had a very long way to come") and so maintained the expected stereotypes. That would have applied to their generation, so if there is any implied gender stereotyping, it is quite valid since they would likely have been stereotyped accordingly. Originally, if you remember, I did describe Plath as the more likely to get into a flap. Jean called it 'frivolous'. I just get the impression that she doesn't like women to come under any criticism like men and finds anything that her own gender stereotyping associates as feminine automatically offensive or inferior or something of the sort merely because she thinks of it as feminine. I don't go in for that sort of sexist nonsense and I don't have time for people who are always finding it because they put it there. |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 25, 2009 18:59:55 GMT
A case of treading on eggshells, you think, Piffle? Perhaps.
But I certainly don't think it is anything to get too worked up about.....have a gin and tonic on me. Jean too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Mar 25, 2009 21:51:16 GMT
It's one of those situations that gets parodied in stuff like Clare in the Community where somebody (or several people) will find some obscure reason of their own to strike one word after another out until nobody can say anything. I've seen far too many words and opinions go from unspeakable or the norm, through to their opposite and back again to give a damn about what the words are compared to how they are used.
My favourite example of perfect political correctnes is Enoch Powell's infamous River of Blood speech (which is not even what he said). It probably created more racist tension because it avoided emotive words than if he'd raved like Hitler and people could have just dismissed it as a load of rant.
I will say that Hysterical is something I associate more with children than adults, but that's something of the point. I don't know the details but the pair come with him as an old misery born middle-aged and her as one that never quite grew up.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 25, 2009 21:53:38 GMT
I don't know the details but the pair come with him as an old misery born middle-aged and her as one that never quite grew up. See that's a great way to put it. Almost poetry, and not a cliche in sight. The stuff about one being born midde-aged and the other not quite grown up just sums up for me how you're seeing the coupe. Wonderful. What a great word picture!  |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Mar 25, 2009 21:57:03 GMT
Hellz bellz.! Trouble is - try to define middle-aged  I'm sure most of us fit that category in literal years but we'd hate to be thought so in the other sense (I leave that to Sandywinder on another board)  |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 25, 2009 22:31:07 GMT
Originally, if you remember, I did describe Plath as the more likely to get into a flap. Jean called it 'frivolous'. I just get the impression that she doesn't like women to come under any criticism like men ... Well you're wrong. I don't like 'hysterical' for the reasons I've given, and it hasn't been 'regendered ' for me because it's never been 'degendered'. But principally, I don't think you know enough about either Hughes or Plath to throw around these careless diagnoses as you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Mar 25, 2009 22:43:19 GMT
You should read what I posted more carefully Jean. Then you would see that I gave no diagnosis at all, merely my impressions. It would be a sad day if nobody were entitled to say the impression that got and another for impressions to be confused with statements intended as authoritative diagnosis.
Not being a psychiatrist, you have no more authority than I do to offer more than your impressions or to discount my freedom to have mine.
I am not responsible for your habits of associating words with gender, race, nationality, religion or any other human distinction. I never had those prejudices and I see no reason to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 25, 2009 22:55:47 GMT
Not being a psychiatrist, you have no more authority than I do to offer more than your impressions... Exactly. But you may have noticed that I don't think it worthwhile to offer such facile 'impressions'. Both Hughes and Plath deserve better than that. Which is not at all the same thing of saying that either of them is above criticism. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Mar 26, 2009 0:32:57 GMT
Wel you know, I am used to holding conversations with people where we discuss opinions and exchange information all interested in each other's views, not holding forth in lectures where every opinion is treated as a lecture and the biggest academic qualification wins. I treat boards in the same way. If I want to speak with authority, I will cite authority. If I want to speak from experience I will cite experience. And if I want to give an opinion I will give an opinion. That's what normal people normally do. It doesn't have to be right or wrong. Nobody is sitting an exam. Nobody is laying down the law. People are just chatting.
I will use language in the way familiar to me from usage around me and if that conflicts with minority prejudices that is the minority's problem not mine. Conversely, if I have a particular reason to restrict an ill-defined word to a jargon[/] sense for a specific purpose, then I will grant the courtesy of explaining what that sense is and why I am using it that way, and I expect the same courtesy in return.
I have indeed noticed that you don't feel motivated to to offer such facile 'impressions'. The only contribution I have found from you so far is to pick on words in my posts that conflict with your personal prejudices that nobody else had before and to blow them out of all proportion ending with the lame opinion that because you do not find it worth your while to contribute a positive opinion, I should not, so presumably nobody else should either without your permission.
Since you find it beneath your dignity to discuss any impressions of your own whatsoever, you are in no position to pronounce on mine as 'facile'. First, there is neither requirement nor implication on my part that they might be anything else. Second, who the hell do you think you are to come out of the blue looking down your nose to sniff that my reaction to these people as 'facile' because you are the judge of all worthiness, when you can't be arsed to show any reaction at all? How do you know what these people deserve? Who the hell are you to judge them, me or anybody else except as a matter of opinion? Get off your high bloody horse will you?
Fluffy be damned! You're like a freezing draught in a cosy warm room.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 26, 2009 9:12:21 GMT
Wel you know, I am used to holding conversations with people where we discuss opinions and exchange information all interested in each other's views, not holding forth in lectures where every opinion is treated as a lecture and the biggest academic qualification wins. I treat boards in the same way. If I want to speak with authority, I will cite authority. If I want to speak from experience I will cite experience. And if I want to give an opinion I will give an opinion. That's what normal people normally do. It doesn't have to be right or wrong. Nobody is sitting an exam. Nobody is laying down the law. People are just chatting. Good point, Piffle, though the rest of the post slid gradually downhill after that! |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 26, 2009 9:39:08 GMT
Wel you know, I am used to holding conversations with people where we discuss opinions and exchange information all interested in each other's views, . There's been precious little information present on this thread, though. It's fine to want your discussion forum to be a cosy warm room - I 'm just not happy about discussing a seriously disturbed woman, who killed herself, in that sort of context. |
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Mar 26, 2009 9:46:23 GMT
It's fine to want your discussion forum to be a cosy warm room - I 'm just not happy about discussing a seriously disturbed woman, who killed herself, in that sort of context. This is a very valid point indeed  |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 26, 2009 11:04:30 GMT
And yet neither of you picked up on Patrick's comment in the opening post:
In terms of quality Piffle's comment was no worse IMO, because he was trying to make a connection between the way the couple lived their livesand the death of their son. Okay, so I don't think we should try to keep blaming people for others' problems, but I'm afraid if you are famous and dead you are probably a target for speculation, and I'm not sure that the ill can be exempted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 26, 2009 11:17:06 GMT
It's not something which I genuinely believe - BUT - is something I have merely surmised underneath all the "Hughes-worship" that went on. Reading obituaries dripping with admiration and wonderment at his brilliance - yet they always glossed over the "suicides", and I have just occasionally considered there was more to it. Though I was always fairly nauseated by the pedestal like position that some folk put Plath on. Her poems were really only so-so, hardly worth the crazed wonderment that people viewed them with. Yet I once had a dreadful A-level Literature tutor who gushed over every word of hers.
..........and people, please don't have a go at each other - it's not worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 26, 2009 11:53:12 GMT
And yet neither of you picked up on Patrick's comment in the opening post: I didn't because I have often suspected it myself - but I am not going to discuss it because frankly I don't know enough. Piffle spoke of the son growing up with that pair as parents and said that it must have been pretty frustrating because he couldn't imagine either of them having time for anything that wasn't him brooding or her flapping.I think it's fair to point out that when the son reached the stage of 'growing up', his mother was not 'flapping', or doing anything else actually, because she was dead. Of course. But are you suggesting such speculation should never be questioned? |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 26, 2009 12:12:18 GMT
Jean, no , if someone makes a comment about a person it is right to question it. It is just that I felt Piffle was being rather unfairly targetted for his "flapping" remark, which gave rise to all this hot air.
Patrick, have you put your finger out? To test the smoke alarms, I mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 26, 2009 12:38:42 GMT
Patrick, have you put your finger out? To test the smoke alarms, I mean. Hands over ears then!  |
|
)
