From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.)
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:04:50 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <1992Sep3.162148.22963@javelin.sim.es.com> Heiner Biesel writes:
|>cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook) writes:
|>
|>...[in reference to a typical Rivero post]...
|>
|>>Over and over and over again on the net, I've encountered the phrase
|>>"a feminist".  As in "A feminist told me I couldn't be a feminist 
|>>because I'm a man."  "A feminist told me there's no parallel between
|>>abortion rights and child support."  "I know a feminist who wouldn't
|>>shave her legs to save her life."
|>
|>>Just HOW are you guys defining "a feminist"?
|>
|>Oh dear, the olde 'who is a real feminist' topic again.

Bullshit.  I most specifically did NOT say 'who is a real feminist', nor
was that what I was implying.

|>Anyone who calls herself a feminist is presumed to be one.

Fine.  Rivero did not say "A woman who calls herself a feminist said...",
he said "A feminist said".  The question was by what criteria did he
call her a feminist.  If she said "I'm a feminist and I think...", then
fine.  However, there is also the possibility that Rivero thought "That
sounds so damn stupid, she must be a feminist."  There is the possibility
that that happens all the time here.

|>The burden of disproof is upon the skeptic.

Proof?  Disproof?  All _I_ did was ask a question.

|> That puts G. Steinem and A. Dworkin in the
|>same category, ludicrous as that may be. It's also inconvenient for most
|>feminists, and provides ready ammunition for the snipers from the sidelines.


|>It's a common burden with any ideological movement: the Maoists have
|>Sendero Luminoso, the Republicans have David Duke, the National Socialists
|>have Adolf Hitler.

These are all people who have identified themselves with the movements in
question.  In most usenet stories, there is no indication whatsoever what
criteria was used to identify the person.  If it's just sloppy writing,
that's perfectly understandable.

|> (yes, this is INTERNET, so this reference is obligatory)

Mention of Hitler on usenet generally signals an EOF to me.
Or at least, an end to any worthwhile ideas.

|>
|>Rivero:
|>>|>  Look, I agree that there's some question of taste in the
relationship with
|>>|>the 21 year old, but to actually HOPE two small children were
really sexually
|>>|>molested so that Woody gets his comeuppance???????????  This is not
a woman
|>>|>I would want raising MY kids!
|>
|>Why would anyone take seriously the comments of someone who finds it
necessary
|>to append 11 question marks to a rhetorical question? Presumably, the
audience
|>has enough sense to be able to tell shit from Shinola. If they don't, why
|>bother to post?

I can see I was too subtle for you.  I was not displaying concern that
Rivero's children might fall into the hands of this evil (and, according
to Pat Robertson, doubtlessly also a divorced lesbian practicing witchcraft)
feminist.  I was merely asking if his rhetorical question had a deeper
implication.

|>Regards,
|>       H. Biesel
                                    
                             -rocker