From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:31:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug26.141531.22347@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nux.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>Well, here we go again.....
>
>In article <q_bna4l.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.141305.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>>>In article <6y=nxng.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>> And then these bills will be passed, and it will be an offense
>>>> (legally) to women everywhere that one is male. An offense punishable
>>>> to who knows what extent. Most of these things remind me of communism.
>>>> Whatever may have happened is not important, it is what this means
>>>> as seen by the communist party, or in this case, the feminist party.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> I see a similarity in the idealism, and the way it is being expressed.
>>>
>>>Dworkin-Mackinnon laws have yet to be upheld in courts.
>>
>>OK, I guess that we can ignore them then.
>>
>	He never said that.  The point was that your claim that "these bills
>will be passed, 

As long as we are dealing with things not claimed, add in the "these bills
will be passed" above. I do claim that several cities/states have adapted
laws drafted by Dworkin and MacKinnon.

>                  and it will be an offense...that one is male" was hyperbolic,
>to say the least.

Perhaps, but you seem confused as to the source.

>                 Personally, I think it's pretty reprehensible for The State
>to stick its nose into our libraries, record/tape/CD/video collections, and
>bedrooms; but the "idealism" that supports that isn't "communist"

So, I have never claimed that it -was- communist, just that it is similiar.
Can you please get this point straight?

>                                                                   , it's just
>plain Statist.  

Statist??

>                   In fact, the segment of the population in this country that
>most enthusiastically supports this kind of thing is the religious right, which
>is generally about as anti-feminist as you can get, judging from the spew that
>came out of the Republican convention last week.
>	BTW, the highlighted line above still looks like an attempt to
>insinuate some connection between femninism and communism.  If not, please
>clarify what you mean by "similarity in idealism".

I suppose my claims that this is neither what I said nor meant affects
your opinion in any way. You should read some of the works of Dworkin,
everything is examined in a socio-political context which I find
indistinguishable with the basis for communism. And I have not noticed
a great deal of difference in the intended application of said ideals
either. Note, I am an expert in neither communism nor feminism, but I
do see a similarity between the actions/writings of -some- feminist
extremists and communism in action. I am not claiming that they are
the whole of feminism, not even representative. But they (Dworkin,
MacKinnon, and those who think as they do) need to be watched carefully.

>>>-- 
>>>Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
>>>HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
>>>HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
>>>                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
>>
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>The_Doge
>ObQuote:	"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of
>		person I preach to!" -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, Dallas, 1957

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism