From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminist Jokes
Date: 4 Nov 92 22:08:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Nov2.225814.4735@news.Hawaii.Edu> mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson) writes:

>Are you saying that feminists don't have sex?  

No you are implying, that I am saying, that "feminists don't have sex.  I
stated that I personally doubted that feminists of the "political stripe"
have any desire for meaningful relationships with men, nevermind having
a sexual one.  (read radical feminist if you like.)

I said this in responce to a posting by G. Fitch who made the claim that
their were a "large number of versions (of this thread) which insist that 
feminists pretend to be against (hetrosexual) sex while covertly wishing 
for it."  This is the old feminist "men think that deep down inside that
all we need is a good ..." routine.  Ment to put men in to boxes of
their bigoted design.  It's a trick used to portray the arguments of men
as trivial based on sexual jealousy. 

I said what I said for a number of reasons formost of which is what 
feminists on the net and in print say about men, society, and history.  
I feel that women who feel about men in the way that these women do
could not have meaningful relationships with men in general.  They do
not like men and some even hate men, at best are indifferent.  

I know it is not fair to place women who call themselves feminists
into that box.  There are many women, some on the net, who
are interested in getting a 'piece of the action', and fairness for their 
gender and those I support in both word and more importantly deed.  Then 
there are those who seem to have a pathological bias against men.  Their 
purposes go far beyound gender equality.  They remind me of racial bigots.  
And so I feel that women who are like that could not have much interest 
in meaningful relationships with men, could hardly have much interest in 
sexual ones, save for animal gratification.

G. Fitch tried to lay a 'psycological trip' on the, (for lack of a better
word), anti-feminist.  This was to imply that we have some kind of
sexual jealousy.  Make no mistake Mike, our objections to Radical
Feminism are not as shallow as to be based on sexual jealousy.  This
attempt by feminists to define us as petty will not work. People are
begining to see feminists for the bigots they really are.  When you get
down to it much of feminism has sexual overtones.  Ever wonder why?

  (Then who's reading
>Susie Bright's _Susie Sexpert_ column in _On our Backs_?  Who were all
>those couples that came to defend abortion clinics in NYC this summer?
>Get real.)

Get real. Ha Ha Ha Ha.  Who is reading Susie Bright?  What is she your
new guru or something?  A cult figure?  The christ of sex?  Who gives
a turd about Susie Bright except her devotees.  Get real man your not
the only human being on the plant that has any ideas, and Susie Bright
is not the first and last word on anything.  She's your thing not mine.
For some people it is Hugh Heffiner who is their guru of sex.  For me
it is my innerself and feelings?  To each her own as they say.

>Or are you just irritable because some feminists choose to sleep 
>exclusively with other women?
>Mike

Do you really think that I give a care who sleeps with whom?  You just 
don't get it.  That fact that many feminist are lesbians does not escape
me and I do think about it, but not on such a shallow level.  I have given
some thought to how lesbian feminists influence feminist thought especially
that which deals with sexual theories and the anti-man bias that seems
to be woven into feminist thought.

"How many men does it take to change a lightbulb?"

Well how many?

starbuck