From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist and 50/50 (Was: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 22 Nov 92 10:44:04
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov21.201338.13473@netcom.com>
	<1992Nov21.211111.24218@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Nov22.044436.7341@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:44:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.044436.7341@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.211111.24218@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>I addressed the question, 'is -feminism- about double standards' in response
>>>to your claim that -sexism- is about double standards. It would seem this
>>>is a distinction which you can't figure out how to flame or denigrate, so
>>>you edit it out and use ad-hominum. 
>>You seemed to argue "some feminists seem to think feminism is about
>>double-standards, while others don't."  So?  What's the point?  Is there
>>something relevant or contentious there?

>I said that it may be true that sexism is about double standards, but not
>all feminists view sexism this way.

*Most* of the feminist I have talked to or heard of *do* view sexism as
being about double standards.  Is your argument that, because you
believe most feminists are in favor of double standards (against men),
you do not believe that they think this is sexist?  Just because someone
believes that "sexism is about double standards" does not mean that they
are therefore against all double standards.  I think that it would make
more sense if they were, but it certainly does not have to follow.

>And some feminists are for double standards
>(when they are in their favor), and some are against them all. But I do
>not think it would be valid to say that feminists are against double
>standards, lest we be guilty of generalizing from a few examples.

Who has said this?  All I see rini saying (going back 4-5 articles) is
that sexism is about double standards.  You seem to agree with this, but
then take the opportunity to accuse most feminists of being sexist, in
favor of double standards, etc.  Speaking of "generalizing from a few
examples," what do you call:

>BTW, the last two women I talked with on this issue fell into the camp
>which allowed sexism against males. They had a realistic concern for
>fixing their problems, but expressed no concern for doing the same damage
>they objected too.

Wow, a whopping two examples, of "women," not even "feminists."  Well,
heck, *I'm* convinced now that all feminists are sexist, discriminatory
weilders of double standards.

So, was your whole point to attack feminism (yet again)?  If you want to
prove that most feminists are in favor of double standards, instead of
hauling out two women (why do you choose to hang around with these
people, anyway?  I wouldn't stick around people who felt that it was
okay to discriminate against me.) who may or may not be feminists, how
about doing a general survey of feminist writings, coming back with a
bibliography and a percentage of those writings which are in favor of
double standards?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism