[Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and on-topic discussions

[Chan Fu]

On 10/8/05, jkirk <jkirk at spro.net> wrote:
> Speaking of "open space and seeing," the time has come for me to point out
> what I alluded to very indirectly before--that comments on this list are so
> spatially oriented toward, and closed, by the males on it that useful and
> relevant comments by a female, me in this case, continually are unresponded
> to and/or ignored. (I just went over my postings to the list since 23 Aug,
> and found 17 of them, most of them, that were totally not responded to.)
> This has been going on for months.  Too often, the un-responded-to posts
> that I had hoped would elicit responses that I could think over and learn
> from, ended up being ignored, and I had no responses to consider.
>
> Generally speaking, and especially when the testosterone gets rampantly
> flowing over some particular topic-- despite the fact that it has worn out
> its welcome (among some of us) long before and people are just repeating
> themselves--the debate just keeps on going like some exhausted battery
> rabbit commercial.
>
> I happen to be a scholar--- therefore what serious posts I offer don't come
> out of People magazine or usenets, and I have to say that it's time male
> denizens of this list thought over their tendency to ignore anything, even
> almost everything, I contribute to the list discourse. And please do not
> indulge yourselves by replying that I am suffering from an excess of ego,
> since that is found in wondrous abundance among every other contributor on
> this list --so forget about that one. As well, don't ask me to just delete
> if I don't like what's on offer here......I do that regularly.
>
> No--This is an unrecognized issue on this list---male egomania and the
> unconscious marginalization and ignoring of anything offered by the one
> female scholar, so far, to have anything to do with this Buddha-L discourse
> for some time, who sometimes even (schock) offers a rather female point of
> view. Maybe there are other women scholars like me on Buddha-L, but they are
> not posting. I can surely understand why. A few months ago there was a woman
> who posted a few times to the list, (I don't know if she's a scholar or
> not), but she quickly took off.
>
> Think it over, y'all, and please do not demean yourselves by offering any
> smart-aleck or condescending replies. If Buddha-L is supposed to be a
> community of practicers and scholars, then stop isolating and ignoring the
> contributions of the other gender here.
>
> Best wishes,
> Joanna

Sheesh, Jo!

What set that off? I didn't see any sexist stuff here,
but I'm just a newbie. Did I ignore you (all we can
ask of ourselves is just what we do) or something?
You should remember that such indictments include
everyone.

love,
cf