From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Hooker's possibly fraudulen
Summary: The meaning of "Femi-Nazi"
Keywords: hate
Date: 24 Jan 93 17:45:38 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Design, Salem, OR, USA

[Sorry for the delay in sending this . . .]

In article <1h50sfINNqpq@spim.mti.sgi.com>
mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>> >Limbaugh and his "Femi-nazi" comments are insensitive, if nothing else.
>> 
>> Rush uses this term to refer to people with particular (intolerant)
>> political views.  To claim this shows possible racism, sexism, or
>> hatred is asinine.
>> 
>Please present any similarities to the feminist movement and Nazi-ism.

The term "Femi-Nazi" was coined by Rush's friend, professor Thomas Hazlett
(who writes the always excellent last page for REASON magazine) to refer to
feminists who are intolerant of any view but their own.  Intolerance is a
feature of Nazism and of Nazis and "Nazi" is sometimes used to refer to
people who are intolerant (but have nothing else in common with the
National Socialists).  Rush uses the term to refer to feminists who by
their rhetoric and actions seem to be *for* abortions, as opposed to just
the "right" to abortion.  The connection to the Nazis is the number of
children killed by abortion and the Nazi's death camps.  In practice Rush
seems to use in both senses, although he only uses the latter definition.

It is perfectly ok not to like the term, especially if the term is aimed
at you or people you agree with or admire -- you're not supposed to. 
But the term "Nazi" is hurdled at conservatives, like Rush, for far less
cause.

>It must have escaped the notice of the press.

What a surprise.

>I think a better description of Bush is that he panders to the racist
>attitudes in others without making overtly racist statements.

Bush or Rush?  Both?  How?  Give examples please.

...
>Pat is not anti-semitic.  He just thinks that anyone who isn't a
>Christian should not have a place or say in his world, should not affect
>our politics, and should not dirty his doorstep.  This is true religion
>at work.  Tolerance, not understanding.  Pity, not sharing.

Why do you say that?  What has Pat said that makes you think that?  How
do you know he thinks that?

>Pat isn't worth the print it takes to discuss him.

I'm struck by your caring attitude.

...
>> You better read that piece again ("National Review", December 30, 1991) --
>> that isn't what Buckley said.  He said that some of what Buchanan has said
>> could reasonably be taken as anti-semitic, and he should apologize for
>> those statements (which he hasn't done -- something I view as a character
>> flaw), but that he doesn't think that Buchanan himself is anti-semitic.
>> 
>You are giving him a lot of latitude.  If it walks like and anti-semite,
>and it talks like an anti-semite then it probably is an anti-semite.  I agree
>with your charcter flaw statement -- anti-semitism is a serious character
>flaw.

No one in this discussion argues otherwise.  Your position is
essentially that of Norman Podhoretz, and it is not an unreasonable
position.  However, you would do well to read Buckley's article, or now
his book.  If you are genuinely concerned about anti-semitism (or
racism, etc.) you should be concerned with how the term is used so that
it doesn't lose it's impact.  The term is becoming meaningless because
it is being used by some as a political weapon, not to refer to genuine
anti-semitism, but simply to discredit people with different political
views.  It hurts the cause of anti-anti-semitism to falsely accuse
people of anti-semitism, and for that reason, if no other, it should be
used carefully.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh