{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4746",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 4746,
    "subject": "(no subject)",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2006-10-22T16:44:26+00:00",
    "last": "2006-10-22T16:44:26+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<7.0.1.0.0.20061022181706.03fb5e80@gmx.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Hmpf MacSlow",
        "address": "hmpf1998 at gmx.net"
      },
      "date": "2006-10-22T16:44:26+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) (no subject)",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I was away for a couple of days; I was going to add something in the \nmisogyny discussion but going through the replies posted in my \nabsence now, I see that my points have already been made by others:\n\n\nMuskrat said:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "I'd also like to agree with Hmph when she says:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "I'd say the differences between\nmen and women are somewhat (or, depending on which depiction we're\nactually talking about, often even *hugely*) exaggerated."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Oh, yes.  Absolutely.  I've met men who love children and women who\ngenuinely can't stand the little bastards.  Theodore Sturgeon wrote\na book called \"Venus Plus X\" which touches on this theme.\n\nI think the any differences that may exist are amplified\nby people's desire to see themselves as part of groups\nwith defined roles and behaviors, rather than just another\ndumb human.   Aside from childbirth and castration most behaviors\ncan be found somewhere in both men and women."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Nathan Spears:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "At 05:48 AM 10/20/2006, you wrote:\nI agree with you that our emotions and our thought-processes may not \nbe as different as they have been portrayed. Our experiences, \nhowever, are far more divergent than the tools with which we process \nthem.  I also believe that the best women writers, generally being \nmore empathetic and observant, can create better male characters \nthan male writers create female characters."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "So, to sum it up: There probably *are* differences, but I don't think \nthey're bigger or of a substantially different quality than those \nbetween people with different lifestyles or different cultural \nbackgrounds. And a writer, whether male or female, should ideally be \nboth perceptive and gifted with a high degree of empathy if he or she \nwants to write about people, so they should be able to write a person \nof the opposite gender just as well as they should be able to write a \nperson who is in some other significant way different from \nthemselves. I don't subscribe to the idea of the female mystique, and \nin fact find it quite annoying if people suggest there is something \nfundamentally incomprehensible and perhaps even sort-of-magical about women.\n\nOf course, not all writers even *want* to write primarily about \npeople; the assumption that good characterisation is central to good \nwriting is a side-effect of the triumph of the 'modern' (19th century \nbased) idea of the novel. There are writers whose main focus lies \nelsewhere, and that is perfectly legitimate - I'd argue that with \nWolfe, his focus is certainly more on ideas/philosophy than people, \nand Tolkien, to give another example that's already been mentioned \nhere, was more interested in history, linguistics, and possibly even \ngeography (LotR is definitely more of a love letter to landscapes \nthan it is a story 'about people') than he was in people. I love \nboth, and I'm *not* reading them for their characters."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 3,
          "text": "David Lebling wrote:\nI can't think of a female soldier in BotNS"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "I would assume ********he's******** thinking of Foila, who is indeed \na sympathetic and\nlikable character, a soldier recovering from wounds(?) in the Pelerines'\nhospice. (She's the prize in the story-telling contest, but turns the tables\non the contestants by entering and winning.) This is in _Citadel of the\nAutarch_.\n\n-- Dave Lebling, aka vizcacha"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Yes, I meant Foila. But I'm female, please. I may deny that there are \ngreat differences between the genders, but for all that, I still \nidentify as a woman. *g*\n\n- Hmpf (going back into lurking mode now)\n\n\n\n\n---\n\"You broke metaphysics. Fix it.\"\n- Triangle & Robert "
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}