NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/women/19726

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky soc.women:19726 alt.feminism:4554 soc.men:19410
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!purdue!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!sfjr
From: [e-mail] (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rac3.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:29:07 GMT
Lines: 67

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>[Quoting me]
>>>No, dear.
>>I wonder if anyone can tell me which half of the population is 'permitted' to
>>use this sort of insulting and condescending phrase.
>
>Neither half.  Personally, I think both should be "permitted" to.  I
>think if someone makes some idiotic and incorrect statement about my
>opinions, then I have plenty of reason to have a low opinion of them.
>
>>No fob-offs like 'oh it was obviously not being used to be insulting' please,
>>since it was clearly intended with that exact purpose.
>
>Absolutely.  It was specficially intended to be insulting.  I often
>respond to insults with insults.  That may not be the best thing to do,
>but I find it just as effective as any other method (i.e. not at all) of
>responding to insults.
>
>>If any such defenses
>>do come to mind, I would simply refer you to the standard feminist
>>'prosocution' of males who do this. And you will find that under this
>>philosopy, the remark is indefensible.
>
>Why should it be defended?  If it is okay for a man (actually, many of
>them...*smile*) to insult me, why should it not also be okay for me to
>insult them?  I certainly think it is.
>
>>Have you, by dint of precident, now disowned allegence to the feminist
>>requirement that such phrases are not used in address to womyn? Have you, in
>>other words, given us all the right to call you 'dear'?
>
>Do you mean me, here?  Boy, I'd be happy if that was the worst thing
>that I was called on this newsgroup...*smile*.  Honestly, I would.
>
>>But had you ever considered the possibility that if you practise the new 'human
>>rights' that feminism preaches, men will be more inclined to?
>
>I don't think there's an issue of "human rights" here.  Perhaps there is
>one of politeness.  Do you think that it is a "human right" to be able
>to speak without being insulted?  If so, and if you wish to defend such
>rights, I refer you to a recent post by starbuck, where you should be
>able to find lots of non-idle remarks about me to criticize.  Somehow,
>though, I don't expect to see criticism of people who attack feminists
>with insults.
>
>Muffy
>--
>
>Muffy Barkocy                               [e-mail]
>~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
> discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
> of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn

:a
I have my problem with some particular feminists and I have problems with
some particular feminists doctrines.  However, I think it is important
to realise that feminists are indviduals like members of any other group
who believe a wide variety of things.  I think this post is a good example
of how some people operate on the implicit assumption that feminists
are a monolithic group mind with a single ideology.  Many of the arguments
/complaints seem to be of the form " Feminist X once said this to me, now
you, Feminist Y say/do the contrary.....you are a hyprocrite or you are
to blamed for my anger at X's comment"

Steve R