Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Weird, sexist, and creepy. Thanks for your analysis, Mark. Forget I ever said anything, since it's off topic anyway. And, for the record, I have never been assessed as sexist before in my life. Weird and creepy, occasionally (and I will take those as compliments); sexist, never. So, I don't feel that my submission should be the genesis of some huge sexism in the arts thread, because that is not how I intended it at all. I didn't say that women should not be creative other than being able to have children. "Damned overachievers," was a joke. Forgive me for forgetting my smiley. I am simply in awe of the creative power inherent in women. If that is weird, sexist, and creepy then please shoot me now before Bush's black helicopters come to take me away for not being a Christian either. And if anyone else has insults or assessments of my psychology to share, please do it off-list. Thanks. -J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Sottilaro" <sine@zerocrossing.net> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 12:03 PM Subject: Re: Raison d'etre > Wow, that seems weird, sexist and creepy to me. Hey Cara, could you > put away your guitar and EDP and just pump out some interesting kids? > Doesn't seem quite the same kind of outlet does it? One could as > easily say that a woman's creativity stems from the fact that she can't > squirt sperm all over the place. Sure it's fun, but pretty different > than music. (unless you're Prince) > > Mark Sottilaro > > On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 11:12 AM, Jesse Ray Lucas wrote: > > > For me, I've always throught that creativity had something to do with > > my not > > being able to bear children. Yes, I can put the spark in the hearth, > > but > > she holds the hearth, the kindling, and the fire. Why would females > > bother > > with these lesser arts when they come naturally equipped with > > potential to > > exercise the highest form of creativity? Damned overachievers. > > > > -J > > > > >