From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,sci.bio,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences?
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:33:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug18.205731.4611@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>In article <v03mgxb.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.225224.13677@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>> 
>>>	What feminists want is a fair chance to achieve, although some
>>>of their proposed methods might be seen as reverse discrimination.
>>
>>This is often claimed, but the laws and guidelines drafted by certain
>>feminist lawyers (Andrea Dworkin and someone else) are even more sexist
>>than the problems they propose to deal with. They have literally defined
>>sexism as something men do, and their laws are clearly anti-male. In fact,
>>some were struck down as unconstitutional, but the state in which this
>>occurred escapes me. The laws that were drafted dealt with sexual harrasment,
>>which has been more or less defined as anything which bothers any woman.
>	I think it's a little unfair to take an extremist like Dworkin as
>typical of the feminist movement as a whole.  

I think not, she has been involved in drafting sexual harrasment laws.
So it is not just a matter of opinion.

>                                                I think you'll find fringe
>goofballls in this group as you will in any other group.  Would you have us
>believe that all black civil-rights leaders agree with the Rev. Al Sharpton?
>Or that David Duke speaks for all political conservatives?  

I could vare less, I made a specific argument, based upon observation,
and you are talking about something completely different. I would have you
do nothing, believe whatever you will, you will anyway.

>                                                            I'm not that
>familiar with the men's rights movement but I'd be willing to bet they have
>their wackos as well.

Well, that convinced me that it is fair and right to write anti-male
laws. Thanx for sharing this brilliant bit of logic with me. :^)

Why do I get the impression that you and I have yet to talk about the
same topic? 

>>My point is that the feminists who are doing the most are (IMHO) anti-male,
>>not pro-female. I am not making a theoretical argument, but rather mentioning
>>what I have observed. If your observations are different, fine. They do not 
>>invalidate mine.
>>
>	We can all IMHO ourselves to death here.  Do you actually have any
>empirical evidence that most women who identify themselves as "feminist"
>actually agree with extremists like Dworkin?  Most of the ones I know
>personally don't, but that hardly counts as objective evidence, of course.

I had an interesting conversation on this topic not long ago with an otherwise
very intelligent woman. She echo'd the sediment that anti-male discrimination
was not discrimination. I have heard this often, and from many sources. I
really do believe that it is representative of most womens opinions, whether
they claim to be feminists or not. So yes, I have lots of emperical 
(observational) evidence.

>[...]
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>Chuck
>No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

Rich again