From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:51:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug28.160427.8950@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>In article <a1cn4a#.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.141026.1018@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>>>In article <l-cn-sd.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>[...]
>>>>
>>
>>>                                                            Laws against
>>>sexual harrassment do not necessarily encode Dworkin's extremist views.  
>>
>>Laws drafted by Dworkin must neccessarily encode Dworkin`s views, how
>>can it be otherwise?
>>
>	But *all* sexual harrassment laws were not drafted by Dworkin, which
>is the point I was trying to make.

Granted. On the flip side, are you apecifically aware of any sexual
harrasment laws which do not specify the harrasser as male and the
harrassee as female? Has anyone heard of any non-sexist harrasment 
laws?
 
>>>                                                                       Do
>>>you have any actual evidence that these laws are interpreted in the way you
>>>claim?  Otherwise this is simply an opinion.  Personally, I'd like to hear
>>>from someone with some legal knowledge on this issue.
>>
>>No, this is your mistake in asserting that these were my words. But we have
>>covered that already, have we not?
>>
>	Well, the distinction between what you believed and what someone else
>said was unclear (to me, anyway) in the initial article, and I saw no indication
>that you *disagreed* with what you quoted.  In any case, evidence is still in
>order.

You think so? Feel free to provide some anytime. :^)

BTW, whether or not I agree with anothers words, I will never, ever, ever
defend them as mine own. If you cannot keep track of something so simple
as who said what, I suspect actual evidence would confuse you. I may be
willing to argue the idea, but only after diabusing the readee of the gross
error or attributing something to me that I did not write.

One more thing, If you feel so strongly about evidence, you should feel
-obligated- to provide what you demand.

>[...]
>>
>>>                   Personally, I'm getting a little tired of what looks
>>>like an attempt to discredit the entire feminist movement by repeatedly
>>>focusing on it's most radical members.  It's not unlike discussing the
>>>Republican party only in terms of David Duke or Patrick Buchanan.
>>
>>Any damage done by radical feminists cannot be ignored or dissmissed
>>by saying, "others who claim to be feminists would not do this". Unless
>>you are prepared to prove that they are not feminists, and not a part
>>of the feminist movement, they must be given due consideration.
>	In which case, any damage done by any extremist member of any movmement
>must "be given due consideration", whatever that means in this context.  Fair

Absolutely...

>is fair.  David Duke is a Republican, Rev. Al Sharpton is a civil rights
>leader, members of The Cross, Sword, and Arm of The Lord are Christians.
>That hardly makes them representative of their movements, and it doesn't
>discredit those movements as a whole.

Curiously, I do not and will not belong to any political party, and I am
registered to vote, and I do vote.

They may or may not discredit the movement as a whole. Some orginizations,
like the KKK, exist solely for that reason. By the above logic, just because
a group of KKK members burned someone on a cross, the KKK as a whole is
not implicated. Any acts may or may not represent the wishes of it's members.

>>
>>>>Rich
>>>The_Doge
>>
>>Rich again
>The_Doge
Rich again again...
Newsgroups: alt.feminism