From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon  (Curmudgeon -- cur (bad dog) mudgeon (one who kicks))
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Date: 28 Dec 1992 02:06:37 GMT
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon  (Curmudgeon -- cur (bad dog) mudgeon (one who kicks))
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Note to moderator (leave in the posting, please):
	This is wandering far afield, into the question of
'how can one run an effective political movement', I think.
Perhaps it might (if one wants to continue it) be retitled?

In article <1hcnc5INNrdd@agate.berkeley.edu> mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:
> >I'm also very sensitive to this sort of suggestion.  A few
> >years ago on nutnoise this topic was hammered to death.  The
> >'feminist concensus' at that time (Now, note, this is ON THE
Please note my use of "quotes".  It was presented to ME,
both on the net and in e-mail, as "the feminist position",
NOTING that I've already pointed out my own skepticism
with ANYone representing the "feminist position".
(That's as in anyone, anywhere.  The idea is too widely
discussed, and cannot possibly, due to its nature, have
a precise definition or "party plank".  Whose would I take,
Schafley's <ugh> or Dworkin's <ugh>?  :-)

(didn't agree with)
>anybody who said it was-- characterise failure to cross the street
>as either harassment or assault.
Agreed.  Remember concensus does not mean unanamity, it means
"preponderance".  I will note that the dissenting female
voices were few and far between, this being one of my objections
with "feminism", as well as 'black power', 'asian unity', 'mens movement'
and most any other interest group.

I want to point out I use the quotes here because the
choice of label IS NOT MINE!  I'd characterize a lot of what
I see represented as feminism as misandry, a lot of the 
mens movement as misogyny, a lot of the asian movement as
miswhite-persony, and so on.  The problem is that the
"movement" <other labels also are self-applied> allows
the extremes voice without substantial disassociation.
I think this works against all of these groups ( and
others, the list is by no means exhaustive ).

>I have no question that JJ was branded unkindly.  (I'm not sure
>whether he considers the self-description in his Fullname to be
(See my english definition of curmudgeon, the meaning varies if
you take the gaelic rather than french possible roots!)

>unkind or not, but I think it's inaccurate.)  But to describe any
(What? I'm not a grouch? Well, well, weeeeeelll. GRUMP!)

>such labeling as a feminist consensus is just wrong.
Please note that what I TRIED to say was that it was represented
TO ME as a feminist concensus, and that "feminists" on the
net (for the most part, there have always been a few points
of sanity down around Princeton <then> and such)  didn't dispute it,
and allowed it to stand.

Of course, I don't boo every time David Duke says something
either, but then again I don't HEAR most of what he says,
my blood pressure wouldn't permit it :-(

(To my way of thinking, David Duke is to the white race
what Dworkin <for instance, I could chose other examples
on most any side, Hoyt, Rush, you guys out there?> is to
feminists, i.e. their own worst enemy.)

I must say that you didn't see my e-mail, and that perhaps would
influence your impression.  Perhaps the accusations of being a
rapist, molester, misogynist, hater, controller, and such
that people didn't have the courage to say publicly might
have given you a different impression.  At one point, I was
sorely tempted to remove names and post a few thousand lines
of it, but frankly I don't think most folks would have believed
that it was real.  This, by the way, is nothing unusual in the
way of mail-nastygrams I seem to routinely have tossed my way.

>Therefore there is nothing habitual in my situation, and anything
>that reduces my anxiety for the brief period that I'm feeling it is
>helpful. 
I'd propose that physical self-sufficiency, which is denied to most
females through our idiotic socialization process, would
be MUCH more effective in reducing anxiety in such situations
occurring under normal conditions. (I surely dont' mean
to say that nobody should ever be anxious, I run pretty (&(@**
fast myself when four people start to wander toward my side of the
street flipping bic's and talking loudly about wanting money
for some smokes!)  I mean that a society that taught enablement
for everyone instead of helplessness and victimization would
be a whole lot harder for a mugger or rapist to get along in.

>Mara [who is not calling JJ a liar]
No.  I simply note that you didn't get to read my e-mail.
As usual (well, I'm less a participant now, so I get less
mail now) it was both, shall we say, firmly put and
thoroughly disparaging and abusive.  One gets used to this
kind of e-mail, I fear, if one does not agree with the
"politically correct" attitude put forth in a given newsgroup.

It's one of the reasons I dispair of the human race on some
days.  It seems that being intellectally trendy, be it
"right wing" or "left wing" or "victim-ist" or whatever,
is much more important to most people than a modicum of
thought.  If that's true here on nutnoise, I shudder to think
of how it must be in middle america.
-- 
Extremism *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   in the    *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
  defense of     *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 liberty is no vice.  *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.