From: tparks@world.std.com (terry parks)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:59:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

>Your comparison of Braun to Duke is disgusting.

Ms. Braun is a racist and a sexist, as for Mr. Duke nothing has been
stated identifying him as a sexist.

>Again you call women sexists.

Where:

In article <BMCLF5.Mvp@world.std.com>, tp> > arks@world.std.com (terry parks) wr
ites:

>I apologize for this conversation.  The person in question is extremely
>offensive and thinks that Carol Moseley Braun, the NAACP, the league
>of Women Voters and other groups are racist and sexist.

me>And no one's saying that women should have to vote for women, but just
me>that they should have the choice.

tp>They (and even men), have this choice, right now. There's no restriction
tp>on sexists being able to vote. If you and your fellow sexists want to
tp>vote for people on the basis of their gender you can. If you want to
tp>vote for an ardent bigot like Ms. Braun or someone like David Duke,
tp>you can. Just spare me the rhetoric of all the "good" reasons why
tp>women shouldn't work outside the home, I mean, why Senator Braun should
tp>not represent men.

Your comparison of Braun to Duke is disgusting.

Again you call women sexists.


I guess you continue to be confused. I guess this could be called Politically
Correctitosis.


>me>  The Women's Union

>But you're just wrong. Anyone can join these organizations.

I get it, they wanted to call it The Men's & Women's Union but they didn't
think they'd have enough paint for the sign and they were too confused
like yourself to figure out something like The People's Union.  Regardless
of its membership, any organization which employs a gender-alienating
name like The Women's Union is sexist.  If they didn't purposely want
to alienate men they would purposely use such a title.  BTW, what is the
gender makeup of your The Women's Union?


>me>(I bet I can bet on the answer).
>me>Student organizations here can not restrict membership on criteria of
>me>race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc, so 
>me>they are not discriminatory in the way you imply.

>tp>Oh, really? The Organization of Black Students doesn't restrict membership
>tp>on race--they just try to, eh? The very name is meant to alienate people
>tp>on the basis of race. But I guess there's no bigotry that you don't
>tp>embrace, eh?

>No they don't.  Their name is not allienate people, and they welcome people
>who aren't black.

So The Organization of Black Students is not The Organization of Black
Students but is just called The Organization of Black Students to
signify that it is not The Organization of Black Students but just
The Organization of Black Students which calls itself The Organization
of Black Students.  And some people think David Duke is slippery.
I suppose you sell used cars as well ("The 100,000 miles on the
odometer doesn't mean that the car has gone 100,000 miles it just
means that the odometer indicates that the car has gone 100,000 miles").



>The league of Women voters
>encourgages people (all people) to register and to vote, and to watch
>debates and be informed about the candidates.

Then why oh why don't they change their name? Simple, painless, why
do they day in and day out purposely insist on working under a sexist
banner. The answer is obvious, they purposely don't want to change
their name, they want to be known as The League of WOMEN Voters,
not as The League of Voters. They are sexist and they want to maintain
their sexism.


>me>One more question.  Martin Luther King Jr.  (I'll assume
>me>you know who he is.  Hint, no relation to Rodney King).  Racist?

>>Did he engage in or support racial prejudice?

>He fought against it, all kinds. 

Well then I guess he wasn't then. See, it's not a difficult determination to
make at all.



>me>  What's your problem with her?
>        [Carol Moseley Braun]

>tp>  She's a racist and sexist bigot.

>me>No sir, you are.

>tp>And this is because?

>I don't know why you are a bigot, but your words speak for themselves.

And exactly which words are these? I'd love to see you quote any
racist or sexist statement I've made, especially since you'll have
to make them up.



>me>of course, you ignore the fact that she has a reputation of crossing
>me>race and gender lines. 

>tp>And you want me to ignore what she herself says. I know, who should
>tp>I believe, you or my own eyes.

>You should believe what Senators, Congressmen, the democratice party,
>the press, say about her.

And not what she says herself? Sure, and I'll buy that used car too.

>NO ONE else has your view of her.

Oh really, everybody else is toeing the Nazi Party, I mean, party
line?

>me>And this is because she rejects gender and
>me>racial bias (read what people besides yourself say about her), not 
>me>embraces it.

>tp>This is not what she herself says.

>Again, you have provided no evidence of this.

Seeing her on nationwide TV is good enough evidence for me.
Xref: sparky soc.women:8815 soc.men:8258 talk.rape:852