From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:18:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <ZEN.92Sep29160051@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>In article <22549@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>>  In article zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>> > Equality *is* synonymous to feminism.
>> Were you and I differ is that I do not agree that equality is synonymous
>> to feminism.  Maybe once, but not anymore...
>
>  Well, you're in in agreement with lots of men here.
>
>> Where I see feminist thinking as being faulty for example is in trying to
>> convince women that they are all victims, that they have no power, and in
>> trying to place the blame for all failures of women on men.  Feminists define
>> much of what they profess in terms of men.
>
>  I think women, as a class, *are* victims to the male power structure.
>Not that they are all bludgeoned everyday by concious male actions, but
>what is being a victim?  It's someone who is harmed by some attack or
>action from another(s).  You (generic you) split hairs with this and the
>rest of your points, by arguing with the extremists, saying you don't
>agree, 

Perhaps that is because it is the -extremists- who we disagree with.
What a concept, arguing with those you disagree with. What'll they think
of next. 

>    and then don't *do* anything to help, saying that you don't agree
>with the cause.  

If you think one has to be an activist to help, then I think you are
mistaken. If I do what I think is right, and teach my children the
same concepts (should I ever have any), then I -am- doing something.
If everybody did no more than that, there would be no problem to begin
with.

>               Call yourself a "moderate feminist" or something, or
>call yourself a woman hater, but *do* something to help balance the
>power, to shift things to equality, which you profess to espouse.

State your disagreement with the feminist extremists, and you -will-
get labeled many things. It has happened to me. The power of convienient
labeling. If you are ideologically against Dworkin and the other
extremists, you get lumped in with those who are against equal 
opportunity. The two do not go hand in hand. You can have one without
the other.
 
>> As an example of faulty thinking
>> is the case of domestic violence.  To the feminist it is a simple case of
>> violence agianst women and children.
>
>  Sigh.  Here we go again, with the polemical foo... no.  To the
>feminist it is *not* a simple case of anything.  To *you* it's a simple
>case of slapping a disagreeable label on something good so you can
>smugly ignore it and preserve the status quo.

Show me a side of this issue where this is not the order of the day.
Everybody group is guilty of label slapping. 
 
>> To think you can solve a part of a problem by attacking
>> only the half that suits your purpose is faulty thinking. 
>
>  But you continue to attack the radical part of feminism, which is much
>less than the half you claim that they attack.  As long as it suits your
>purpose, I know.

The feminists extremists are (IMHO) deserving of attack. 
 
> --d

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism