The question of what makes someone feel called to respond to a listserv post is one that interests me. I'm on one particular listserv in which the majority of the posters are dudes, and one dude in particular posts many, many, many times a week. I think he's retired or something. Anyway, in my busiest times I tend not to read them, and in my less busy times I skim over them. A little skirmish broke out last week with Joshie, and I wrote to him off list and asked him why I don't just sign off the damn list since the topic is rarely directly about the topic that ostensibly organizes the listserv in the first place. Why, indeed?
I am prompted to ask this question about why I in particular am moved to respond when I do. I don't do it often. But today there are a bunch of posts about the Spitzer debacle, and one listserv member wrote that "He [Spitzer] behaved foolishly and gave into the
temptations built into his body."
And it was then that I chose to respond. I was no more or less incensed than I was when people were going after Josh (unfairly I might add). Josh can take up for himself, and did quite nicely, thank you. But today I felt like someone needed to make the feminist point here--that the whole scene is more likely about power than it is about biology--a point that E! just made on the phone an hour before the listserv post came across. I mean, the idea that he was arranging these trysts with prostitutes because of a bodily need also implicitly blames his wife, no? I didn't even write that, choosing instead just to make a quick point about the danger of thinking this is wholly about biology and then hitting send. And then I wondered, was that necessary? It sure felt necessary.