From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:40:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
-eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
->Loren writes:
-@ 	I think I must modify my comments slightly. It seems to me
-@ that Rush Limbaugh is the sort of misogynist who objects to seriously
-@ assertive women, though not to submissive or passive or servile or
-@ objectified ones....
-
->Again, I think your conceptions aren't quite correct. (And I mean it
->politely.) I don't think he objects to "feminism" as he is to the
->"militant feminist leadership" whose agenda seems to be nothing more
->than creating tension (or a war) between the sexes.
-
-	No worse that a lot of traditionalist stereotyping. Have you
-ever heard of the "battle of the sexes"?

Yes I have, but I don't think that this battle ever came to the degree
of anti-male sentiment that I think it has become. I know I don't have a
problem with equal pay for equal work or women in corporate positions or
proper punishment for sexual violence or harassment, but incidents
against a woman that are deplorable have been used to advance an agenda
that is being forced down everyone's throats. The Tailhook incident is
now being used to say, "well you better let women into combat now to show
us that you are committed to punishing the guilty officers" which has
nothing to do with the punishment of the officers at all.

Another example is the Detroit Public School System had recently tried
to establish classes in which black boys could be taught by black male
teachers. The purpose of it was to bring the boys up in an environment
with strong male role models and decreasing the likelihood that the boys
would enter the world of crime. However it was a lot of feminist groups
that demanded that girls be allowed in the classroom, thereby
obfuscating the purpose of such classes in the first place. Of course
the Leadership raises hell whenever an all-women school is forced by
economics to admit men. In other words men should have women included
(except perhaps the bathroom), but women should have their own space to
themselves untarnished by testosterone. That's an example of the "war of
the sexes" engaged by the feminists as perceived by Rush and me.

->At least according
->to the images seen publicly, e.g., at the DNC, the feminists shown there
->were espousing lesbian rights, RU486, and abortion rights. I don't think
->this is the agenda for most American women out there for whom the NOW
->claims to be advocating.
-
-	I don't think I've ever heard of the "abortion just for the
-hell of it" position among the mainstream of feminists; but I think
-that a lot of women feel that having abortion unavailable deprives
-them of an important way of controlling their destiny.

I doubt that the leadership would -- if they felt that way -- come out
and say they were for unrestricted abortion on demand, but statements
after the PP vs. Casey ruling from NOW indicated they were against any
of the restrictions that were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court
from parental notification to a waiting period. (Granted they used an
economic argument regarding a waiting period, but I agree that should be
left to a discussion on talk.abortion or another thread.)

-	As to lesbian rights, that may or may not be a high priority
-for many heterosexual women, but I think that homosexual people
-certainly deserve the same privileges as heterosexual people; they
-don't deserve the sort of abuse that they all-too-frequently suffer.
-After all, we don't pick on Jews for not believing in Jesus Christ or
-even stating in their Talmud that his father was a Roman soldier.

I think that most rights are accorded to homosexuals and heterosexuals
equitably. I don't think that homosexuals deserve the abuse they
sometimes get too. But my brow gets furrowed with regards to what
exactly is "lesbian rights" and how it's different from "gay rights."

But I don't think that's the major problem that Rush has. Recently he
has been describing on his show moves by the NYPSS (Public School
System) to have reading literature on ... I think it's "Heather's Two
Mommies." And I'm not referring to the sitcom "My Two Dads" either. At
the least I can see the intent is to encourage tolerance; at worst, the
book glorifies lesbianism. This is one thing that I remember Rush has a
definite problem regarding "lesbian rights."

->I think Rush points out the inconsistencies of this "leadership"...
-
-	Has RL _ever_ stated what he considers OK about _anything_
-that has _ever_ been labeled "feminism"? I'm not aware of him _ever_
-doing any such thing, so your apologia is irrelevant.

Rush does have a couple of chapters regarding the "militant feminists"
and one chapter specifically on his experiences with "feminism." If you
can find the book, it's in there.

I guess another example of the "militant feminist" movement on a more
personal scale deals with a good friend of mine who doesn't want any man
to open a door for her in courtesy (unless she needs to, but that's not
"courtesy" to her). She interprets a man holding the door open for her
as an affirmation that men are physically more powerful than women are
and thus have dominion over them. I have always been told, "you BETTER
hold doors open for older people and especially for women as common
courtesy, or you're a rude scum-bucket." I just can't win. [She does let
me hold the door open for her because we're good friends and she knows
I'm nice to just about everybody who's nice to me.]

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.