From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.)
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:36:33 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep3140231@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu
(Nosy) writes:
|><In article <1992Sep2.223201.24322@crd.ge.com> cook@dollar.crd.ge.com
(Cathi Cook) writes:

|><   Just HOW are you guys defining "a feminist"?
|>
|>	I cannot speak for "guys", but if someone asserts that
|>	they are "a feminist" who am I to doubt her/him?

Did Rivero write that the woman had "asserted" that she was a
feminist?  No, that's why I asked why he called her one.  If,
in fact, she did "assert" this, then my question is answered.

|>	I wonder when cook will ask "Just HOW are you gals defining
|>	'a feminist'"?

I would never ask that, as I think the word "gals" is idiotic.
I wonder when Alan will stop being hypersensitive and realize
that some people use the term "guys" in a gender-neutral manner.

|><   Is it synonymous with "female"?  
|>
|>	It may be, for some, although this seems doubtful.

So you don't know.  Well, that's not much help.

|><Does the woman have to have been
|><   involved with women's rights, or does she just have to have picked
|><   up a copy of Ms. once?  
|>
|>	Who am I to say? Again, if someone asserts that they
|>	are "a feminist", it's easier to take the assertion
|>	at face value than to ask for a detailed life history
|>	complete with overarching philosophy.

Did Rivero write that the woman "asserted" that she was a feminist?

|>
|><Can the woman be married with three kids
|><   and still be a feminist, or does that rule out feminism for you guys
|><   by definition?
|>
|>	Again, I do not speak for "you guys" but if a woman
|>	with 3 children who is married asserts that she is
|>	a feminist, I have better things to do than argue
|>	with her.

Did Rivero write that the woman "asserted" that she was a feminist?

|><   It seems that an awful damn lot of the time here, "a feminist" is
|><   defined as "a woman who says something I don't like".  
|>
|>	It also appears to be used in the same way as the
|>	phrase "studies have shown", "a male chauvanist",
|>	"a white male" and so forth.

Thank you for getting my point.  Without further information as to why
he used the term, the term itself is useless.

|>
|><Over and
|><   over I see these anonymous "a feminist"s taking positions that all
|><   the feminists _I_ know wouldn't consider reasonable even if they
|><   had just had a fifth of tequila.  
|>
|>	Perhaps Cook does not know all the people that call themselves
|>	"feminists" on the planet?

Perhaps this is why Cook qualified her statement with the phrase
"the feminists _I_ know".

|>	One wonders if Cook knows of Andrea Dworkin?

Only what I've read on the net.  She really doesn't get much publicity,
much as many men would like to hold her up as the epitome of feminism.
From what I've heard, she doesn't have much to say that interests me.

|>	You know, the author of this passage:
|>
|>	"Physically the woman in intercourse is a space invaded,
|>	 a literal territory occupied literally; occupied even
|>	 if there is no resistance; even if the occupied person
|>	 said, 'Yes, please, yes hurry, yes more.'"
|>
|>				Andrea Dworkin, "Intercourse".

Again, this doesn't interest me.

|>	If Cook has not heard of Dworkin before,

Get a grip, Taylor.  This from the man who replied to something I
wrote about my _own_father_ by telling me to "...go read alt.child-
support for a dose of reality."  And I had no idea you and my father
were so close!  I also had no idea that my father was posting to
alt.child-support, since I've never known him to have a net 
connection.  

(For those who Just Won't Get It - no, I have no evidence that
my father has ever posted to the net.)

|>	of Dworkin now. Given that Dworkin speaks before thousands
|>	of people every year as a "feminist", it will be interesting
|>	to see if Cook wants to claim that Dworkin isn't one.

Good grief, why would I want to do that?  Have I ever claimed that
anyone WASN'T a feminist when they claimed to be one?  Geeeeze, ask
one little question and people make all KINDS of wild assumptions.

|><There seems to be this sense that
|><   if the poster just CALLS the woman a feminist, his/her little anecdote
|><   can serve to immediately define the "real" feminist position on
|><   anything. 
|>
|>	Indeed, just as anecdotes about "this guy in my class"
|>	illustrate how all men are, anecdotes about "a white
|>	man in my office" show how all white men are and so
|>	forth.

You really believe that sort of thing?  Yes, I guess you would,
considering that you feel that something on the net could be
"a dose of reality".

|>
|>[talk.abortion.tactics deleted]
|>
|><   So there are women spouting nonsense about the Woody Allen affair.
|>
|>	Yes, there are. Some are "feminists" and some are not.
|>	What's the point?

I was kinda looking for an _answer_, not a restatement of my 
question.

|><   The question here is, "What's the point?"  Rivero apparently knows
|><   a woman who has a bad attitude and isn't afraid to show it.  Does 
|><   this really SAY anything?  
|>
|>	It says that at least one self-identified "feminist"
|>	takes a different attitude that Cook would ascribe
|>	to the set of people that call themselves "feminists".

Did Rivero write that the woman was a "self-described" feminist?

I really would wait for Rivero to reply before I went and made
all these assumptions for him, if I were you, that is.

|><Wishing that children had been abused 
|><   for ANY reason immediately disqualifies that person from being
|><   considered rational in my mind.
|>
|>	Ok, so Cook disagrees with the person who spoke with
|>	Rivero. That's good. 

Gosh, Taylor bestows his favor on me!

|>	What's the point, again?

And continues to ask the same question I did.

|><|>  Look, I agree that there's some question of taste in the
relationship with
|><|>the 21 year old, but to actually HOPE two small children were
really sexually
|><|>molested so that Woody gets his comeuppance???????????  This is not
a woman
|><|>I would want raising MY kids!
|>
|><   And again, does this really say anything other than as an implication
|><   that feminist = bad?  
|>
|>	Where does it say that "feminist = bad"?  Can Cook
|>      show this passage?

"Implication".  Look it up.

|>      All it says to me is "one feminist = hater
|>	of Woody Allen".

No, it says "one feminist hopes children have been abused".  Granted,
this is NOT bad if you approve of child abuse, so perhaps I worded
this too strongly.

|>	Unless Cook is insisting that all persons who are "feminists"
|>	MUST believe a certain way, I don't see how she can be
|>	feeling any connection between herself and the unnamed
|>	woman Rivero mentioned.

Rivero connected that woman with feminists.  I don't feel connected
to that sentiment in any way, and I don't think any of _my_ (again,
since this seems to have been previously misunderstood, I'm speaking
only for myself and my friends here) friends would either.  I was
_questioning_ the connection _Rivero_ made.  Is it clearer for you
now?

|>
|><Is the woman in question your ex-wife?  If not,
|><   is there REALLY any danger whatsoever that this woman might end up
|><   raising your kids?  Or was it just a way of saying in code "I wouldn't
|><   want 'a feminist' raising my kids."?
|>
|>	Perhaps it was a "code" way of saying "I wouldn't want
|>	a feminist who hates men raising my kids"...although
|>	such a situation would seem quite unlikely on the face
|>	of it.

And here you go making yet more assumptions, this time that the
woman hated men.  Did Rivero specifically say this?  Why, just
above you said "one feminist = hater of Woody Allen".  Are you
now claiming that Woody Allen represents all men, or do you have
even more inside info on this that you've neglected to share?

                               -rocker