From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Argue assumptions, ignore the post, was (Re: Property, Patriarchy)
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:57:40 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Sep30.040201.402@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.180027.10232@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>[ long discussion about possibility of political and legal equality ]
>>
>>gf:
>>| >                                         ....  In other
>>| >words, given your doubts about equality, what is your
>>| >conclusion about relations between the sexes?  
>>
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne):
>>| The nature of any relationship us up too those having said relationship.
>>
>>gf:
>>| >Would you apply the same theory to other groupings, e.g.
>>| >races or ethnic groups, religions, regions?
>>
>>rp:
>>| Your relationship to any group is between yourself and the group. 
>>
>>Okay, then, contrary to what I thought you were saying
>>before, your position seems to be that equality between the 
>
>You mean, contrary to your assumptions, as I posted nothing on this.
>

He's admitting to an honest mistake about what he thought you said.  What more
do you want?  Obviously, you want to label it assumptions.  :-^

>>sexes, or at least between members of different sexes (and 
>>other groups as well) is not only possible but practical, if 
>>maybe somewhat difficult and not fully achieved yet.  Have I
>>got it right?  I don't think many people around here would 
>>argue with that.  Certainly not many feminists.
>>
>>In this thread, there follows a long discussion that began
>>with this passage, which got some people excited:
>
>No, it got you excited. And then Robert Lynch jumped in, or was it the
>other way around? But it has been just the two of you, one with serious
>perception problems. I should not be surprised I guess. I have recieved
>email from several others who also objected to what I did not say. At
>least they accepted clarification rather than attempting to force me
>to support their assumptions. The initial product ramp is done, no more
>12 hour days, 7 days a week. Lets finish this.

RL:
Actually, I think we both posted complaints about this passage, and then we
(I jumped in, so I'm responsible) ganged up on you.  :-)

>>rp:
>>>| Curiously, while everyone -claims- that if sexism is the problem, it
>>>| cannot also be the answer (when the topic was raised here anyway), it
>>>| also seems that these same posters have (each and every one) come out
>>>| in favor of legislation which requires an anti-male bias. I mean, it
>>>| -is- the PC thing to -say-, is it not? I claim that while most will give
>>>| lip service to the idea, many would do differently given the chance. 
>>>| This will be justified of course. I'm sure that similiar justification
>>>| eased the minds of the Japanese-Americans imprisoned during WW twice. 
>>
>>This passage seems to me to make the positive assertion that
>>"each and every one", or at least many, posters have come
>>out "in favor of legislation which requires an anti-male
>>basis."  I can't recall seeing a single article of this kind
>>in alt.feminism, which is why I asked for references.  After
>>a lot of discussion, Rich says, 
>
>Was it you or Richard Lynch who claimed that this was a blanket statement?

RL:
I'm not sure, but I THINK:
1.  Gordon said it was a blanket statement.
2.  You (Rich Payne) said it wasn't.
3.  I (Rich Lynch) pointed out passages I believed were "blanket".

>>rp:
>>| I did not save the posts. In my experience (also not recorded for your
>>| examination) if it is necessary to save the posts, then it is not worth
>>| the trouble. Communication is lost in a word battle. He said this, you
>>| said that... The posts have probably expired, if they are archived
>>| somewhere, and you must know who said what, go dig them up. I will not 
>>| as it will be a pointless waste of time and effort.
>>
>>I'm not doing word battle, 
>
>You're so badly in need of clarification only because you misintrepret
>what I post, then assume further. And I doubt more words will provide
>clarification, you seem to be out for blood for some reason. If that is
>the case, a mutual understanding would no doubt be less than satisfactory.
>
>>I'm asking for clarification.
>
>It's so simple, you probably will not understand it. Those who posted in
>response seemed to favor leglislation with an anti-male bias, reasons given
>were to 'even things up', more or less. Noone who posted (as I remember)
>clearly stated that they did not favor this type of leglisation. Now you can
>go assume that everyone reading this netgroup posted their opinion, and that
>the survey results will have any relation to the thread, but I doubt you
>could show that it was so, so the proof would be as valid as the original
>paragraph, which seems to trouble you greatly.

RL:
Actually, it's so simple, I understand it just fine, I just don't believe it
and want some proof.

You are absolutely correct that the survey I am taking (see Subject: Survey) is
not a fair judge of whether what you said is correct or not.  I *do* think it
will be interesting to compare the results of the survey with your statement,
just to see if, perhaps, the alleged posts you discuss were, in fact, an
anomoly (presuming they exist).


>>Maybe you see some articles differently than I do, but I
>>can't examine them from your point of view if you won't say
>>which ones they are.  On the other hand, my I suggest that
>>your point of view may be the mistaken one?  Is that
>>possible, do you think?
>
>A point of view cannot me mistaken. This is nonsense. You may doubt that
>what I recall is accurate, and you seem to. But to say that my point
>of view is mistaken deserves the same miscroscopic examination as you
>have been giving my posts. Please demonstrate that this is in any way
>meaningful. If it is not, and it is not, then perhaps your other observations
>are also flawed. 

RL:
FWIW, I also think point of view is a poor choice of words.  It is entirely
possible that you were absolutely correct;  It is entirely possible that you
fabricated the alleged posts in your own mind.
You are more than welcome to examine these statements as microscopically as
you wish.


>>I'm cutting out part of the discussion here which begins
>>gf:
>>||||||Which feminists, exactly, wish to reverse patriarchy and set 
>>||||||up a system that suppresses men as they have been suppressed? 
>>
>>and comes down to
>>
>>||I'd like to know who some of the others in the public eye
>>||are.
>>
>>because Rich says I'm putting words in his mouth, so to
>>speak.  Just one note; I said:
> 
>No, you are making something into something which it was not. Which
>is difficult without going far beyond the original text. I will
>give you an A for effort, unfortunately, your citizenship is unsatisfactory.
>
>>gf:
>>||                                                       If 
>>||you're going to deprecate me and others I'd at least like 
>>||some facts.
>>
>>rp:
>>| You have taken things personally, for no reason. This is your problem,
>>| not mine. Or can you back up that assertion? Since I never mentioned
>>| your name or referred to you, this might be difficult.
>>
>>I'm a feminist and also in the category of persons of whom
>>you said -- these are your words --
>
>Which part of the below sentence fragment do you claim refers to you,
>or even to feminists? Again, you make assumptions, and go from there.
>As I said, this is your problem, deal with it. Preferably off the net.
> 
>>     these same posters have (each and every one) come out
>>     in favor of legislation which requires an anti-male bias.
>>
>>Unless you approve of people coming out in favor of
>>legislation which requires an anti-male bias, this statement
>>is a deprecation.
>
>No, this was a summary of what was posted. It can be accurate, or not,
>but as it refers to a real event, and makes no value judgements ,it 
>cannot be depreciating. Lets add this to your assertion that a point of
>view can be mistaken, just more noise.

There can be no doubt that some of the remarks you made concerning myself (eg
that I ask someone who cares like my mother) are deprecating.  *I* certainly
found it so.  I can't think of anything in particular that you said about
Gordon, but IMO your overall tone has not been exactly polite.  I'm NOT
claiming innocence here.

>>rp:
>>||||||| Further I note that a large part of the 'feminist' movement is not
>>||||||| pro-female at all, but quite clearly anti-male. 
>>
>>gf:
>>||||||I think you should justify that statement.   
>>
>>rp:
>>||| ...
>>||| And you are asking for numbers, names, and specifics, which I have
>>||| not offered, and do not. Especially since you casually disqualify
>>||| some because you are tired of hearing about them. If you get to
>>||| pick and choose what I can use, I have no interest in dealing
>>||| with things in your terms. ...
>>||| If you think that I need to justify my experiences, and to you,
>>||| I suggest your understanding of the situation is badly flawed. 
>>||| Further, what is the value of justification at all? As stated before,
>>||| did justification make the internment of the Japanese-Americans
>>||| during WW2 right? You may deal in justification, I will not.
>>
>>gf:
>>At this point it doesn't appear that you _can_. 
>
>At this point, I don't think that I need to. 

RL:
You have already point-blank refused.

>>rp:
>>| The problem is that you want me to justify what you think that I am
>>| saying, and I do not agree with your assesment, not at all. 
>>
>>Correct it, then.  
>
>I've tried, has'nt worked. I see no point in wasting more time on it,
>you will just find some other trivial point to argue, then act as if you
>had won a major point. 

The major contention I have had (poorly and over-emotionally stated, perhaps)
for some time now is that I find it hard to believe that your sampling of post
could be accurate when you use adjective phrases such as "each and every one"
to describe the people who posted responses to two different statements which
are diametrically opposed in some way.
The only point I have now is that you have point-blank refused to produce your
data for the statement you made.  'Nuff said.


>>                   I quoted your statement verbatim just 
>>above, though, so we're not dealing with my assessment 
>>of what you said, but what you did say, are we not?
>
>But your quotes did not back your assertions, lets not forget that, OK?
> 
>>rp:
>>| And as I said before, who cares what you want? 
>>
>>I don't know, a lot of people, maybe.  I think the question
>>here is what _you_ want -- whether you want to be taken 
>>seriously.  
>
>If you ever took me seriously, you would have read what I posted. And
>until you do, we are not arguing the same thing. Do you really think
>people take you seriously?
> 

I know I took you seriously, and got upset because I know I wouldn't have
posted a positive response to a suggestion for legislation with an anti-male
bias.  I now take you less seriously because you failed to back up your
statements about these posts with copies of the posts that should have been
readily available to you.
[At this point, I'd even be willing to look around for archives if you'd be
willing to give me a specific thread or phrase to search for, just to put this
issue to rest.  This is an open request for information about such an archive
if anybody has one.]

>>You've made a number of derogatory remarks about me and 
>>other people in a public forum 
>
>No, you have assumed tons more, and failed to back these assertions.
>Futhermore, they are derogatory only in your eyes, and you need glasses
>so badly you cannot read my posts (or so it would seem).
>
>>                                         -- such as saying that 
>>feminists are anti-female -- 
>
>I assume that this is a typo, and you meant 'anti-male'. And many feminists
>ARE anti-male, so what? This is a fact you will eventually have to deal
>with, why not start now?
>
>>                                     and then refused to say what 
>>justification you have for making them, which comes down 
>>to "Nyah, nyah," mostly.  Maybe you'd prefer it if we 
>>ignored you?
>
>No, I'd be happy if you just got something right. You are not arguing with
>me, there is nothing in your complaints that came from my post. But I find
>it upsetting when you repeatedly mangle what I post, and claim that I
>have made stupid value judgements, when I have made none at all. 

While your original statement may not contain any value judgements directly,
there is an implicit value judgement about the alleged posters:  specifically
that their logic is imperfect or that they are hypocritical.

>You need a long vacation Gorden. BTW, do you know someone named Ted? Posts
>in sci.skeptic.

Still wanna claim you haven't made any deprecating remarks?  Or is this a break
in your pattern?  Or do you wanna contend that this isn't deprecating?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu