NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/feminism/4572

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 4.2 KB | 96 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!ornl!sunova!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:29:31 GMT
Lines: 85

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>>[e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>>[e-mail] writes:
>>>>>>>[e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Men and women both have good points and bad points, strengths and
>>>>>>>>weaknesses. Reading posts here gives one the impression that the only
>>>>>>>>things men do deserving consideration is to rape, sexually harrass, have
>>>>>>>>sex with their children, etc...

This is rini
>>>>>>>Oh please.  You're tempting me to pull your post that says, "Who here has
>>>>>>>said this!  Give examples!  If things are as you paint, you should be
>>>>>>>able to point just about *any* post to prove your point!" or something
>>>>>>>like that.  (Then we could have 50,000 follow-ups where I go, "BUT IS
>>>>>>>THIS REPRESENTATIVE!!".)  But I think it's not a good idea to get Rich
>>>>>>>started.  :)

[much ado about nothing now dearly departed]

>>Pleaze, this is stupid. Go back and re-read, rini asked for EXAMPLES.
>>I posted examples. You can take your data sampling comment and jump in
>>the nearest lake.
>
>rini asked for EXAMPLES of the overwhelming anti-male bias you claim to see.

No, all wrong. Rini just asked for examples, and I did not claim an
overwhelming anti-male bias. Look above.

She said that I aught to be able to point to just about any post to make
my point, and that seems to have been the case. The fact that many instances
were in quoted material does not alter this.

>You gave 175 instances of the word rape, many of which she has shown to be not
>anti-male at all.  You have failed to post examples of what you claim to see.

And I said that "Reading posts here gives one the impression that the only
things men do deserving consideration is to rape, sexually harrass, have sex
with their children, etc..."

>>>>I would also like to point out that feminists say that what men say, and
>>>>the way they say it, limits and devalue women. If this is true, does
>>>>not the same apply to the way feminists talk about men?
>>>
>>>Discussing rape does not automatically mean one is discussing all men, as you
>>>seem to think it does.
>>
>>Then the claims feminists make about language devaluing women are equally
>>suspect.
>
>Feminists claim:
>Using men to refer to women + men implies that women is insignificant.

This is a -part- of what feminsts claim. And not the part I have been
referring too. The claims that I have heard go far beyond gender-neutral
pronouns (which are not all that hard to use most of the time).

>Rich Payne claims:
>Using rape implies an anti-male bias.

No, this is what Richard Lynch claims I claim. Clear communication has never
been the norm here. The case is much more general. Case in point, calendars.
Same basic idea, many feel that the calendars are offensive (I do not),
and claim actual oppression and harm. The women referred too in the post
which started the calendar thread actually claimed that these calendars
-caused- rape. Is that full circle. If there were any causal connection
the Meese commission was desperate to find it, but failed.

>Fact:
>Many of the usages of the word rape as sampled here are *not* anti-male.

Fact, things have gotten confused. You misrepresented both my original
claim and rini's.

>"TANSTAAFL"     [e-mail]

Rich

[e-mail]