From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:26:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.054047.11378@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
wrote:

> No.  Generally, I use the Net to engage in verbal 
> play, or (and) to attempt to get a better understanding
> of something.  And I like to put ideas into people's
> heads; they sometimes crop up in strange places.  But
> "educate"?  The usual meaning of that word has connotations
> of taking another by the hand and leading them along (it's
> derived from the Latin for "lead.")  There's certainly
> an implication that the one who educates knows, and the 
> ones who are educated do not -- a singularly inappropriate 
> assumption for anyone in this company, as far as I can see.
> Anyway, I'm not into it.

You're self-deluded, and deliberately precious with the semantics, Gordon. 
You do think you have something to contribute, or you wouldn't bother.
 
gf:
> However, in this particular case, I've also been blowing off
> a bit of emotional steam.  I have been homeless for brief
> periods myself, and I know that it would take only a small
> accident, a stroke, say, to make me homeless again, as
> miserable as any one of the people I step over in the
> subway, in spite of having supported myself and others and
> paid taxes for thirty-odd years.  

Good.  We finally get to a real reason.  You are absolutely correct.

gf: 
> I haven't seen much concern for the homeless in this 
> thread; instead, I've seen a kind of maneuvering to use 
> their existence as yet another stick to beat feminism with.  
> Conceivably, as you said earlier, it is only a kind of cool 
> interest in perceptual matters that obtains, and nothing was 
> planned.  If so, good; although I may have to stay away from 
> the discussion, lacking the necessary coolness.

You have *imagined* a kind of manoeuvering.  With personal experience, your
views are no doubt sharper than others', so by all means join in.
 
> ss:
> | I must say, this sounds a lot like a cheap rhetorical dig
> | against Hillel Gazit and Garry King (and probably myself)
> | rather than any real concern about the homeless.  I.e., 
> | something along the lines of 'shit or get off the pot.'

gf:
> Is that sort of thing a cheap rhetorical dig?  I think
> it's a fairly cogent kind of argument.  One like it 
> certainly ended the famous draft discussion.  We are 
> talking about real human beings and real problems, aren't 
> we?  Why is it a cheap rhetorical dig to ask what the 
> talk is supposed to accomplish, or where it is going?

From my perspective, the talk is meant to explore the gendering of one of
the major social misfortunes.  Where is it going ?  I dunno.

Again Gordon, you display huge inconsistency.  Idle discussion of social
issues is fine until we hit something about which you are uncomfortable,
then it's *Take Action or Shut Up*. This is absurd. 

> ss:
> | If you believe what you're saying, how come you're not
> | out there on the front lines?
gf: 
> As it happens I've done some work for a local outfit 
> called Project Hospitality which has succeeded in 
> sheltering dozens, maybe hundreds, of homeless people.  
> That's how I came to notice that almost all the people 
> involved in working for it and similar organizations as 
> a regular practice were women, as I reported.  I hope
> this explains my lack of _perspective_.

So, if the Net is verbal play for you, try playing fair.  The point about
women working in shelters is good (if it matches the general situation).  I
won't ask the proportion of men vs. women your Project sheltered, since it
would be a cheap rhetorical dig.


Garry.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:3911 rec.humor:33231