From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: I confess!... *HE'S* guilty!!!!
Date: 7 Jan 1993 20:19:14 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <1993Jan7.122143.26119@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>| ...
>| But what evidence is there that there are NO inherent mental differences?
>| [....]  then the proposition
>| is unfalsifiable.  It becomes a matter of faith.
>| 
>| "Feminism" is not a set of logical postulates that can be debated, analyzed,
>| and resolved.  It's a religion, pure and simple.   ...

>You seem to be almost entirely ignorant of feminist theory.

Not so "ignorant" as to believe in it.  I probably know a lot
less about the nuances of astrology and faith healing than do
the purveyors of the stuff, but I know enough to see that there 
are certain aspects of it that are, shall we say, not firmly grounded
in reality.

The term "feminist" is so vague as to be almost useless.  Whenever
anyone tries to define a "feminist" position "X" for the sake of argument,
there is always someone who pops up and objects that "not all" feminists
agree with "X", and so it's not fair to label "X" as a "feminist position". 

For example:

>First of all, there _are_ feminists who accept the idea that
>there are significant inherent differences between men and
>women, although this is not a majority opinion.  

So a "feminist" is either someone who believes that there is NO inherent
mental difference between the sexes (the implicit definition of the poster
to whom I had originally responded), or else a "feminist" is someone who
believes that there IS a difference.  Did you know there are also Pro-Life
"feminists"?  I guess that means that Pro-Life is a "feminist" position too. 

I have probably read a lot more feminist literature than you have.  I even
had a subscription to Ms magazine, back in the days when it was still
fashionable among feminists to sneer at women who stay home and take care
of children.  A sizable portion of feminist literature is hate literature;
hatred of men, and hatred of women in traditional roles.  I presume you 
don't consider it to be "real" feminism to believe that all heterosexual
sex is rape (Dworkin), or that all men are murderers at heart (Chesler).
Or maybe you agree with it, but only so far as it applies to men OTHER THAN
YOURSELF.  "I confess, HE's guilty!!" 

>there is a very large body of feminist writing which is at
>least as rational as any other kind of writing on the same
>subjects (mostly, politics and social issues).  

There is a very large body of RELIGIOUS writing that meet those same
criteria, going all the way back to the Talmud and the writings of
Thomas Aquinas.  There are volumes of infinitely logical, precise and
elegant discursions on such topics as the obligations of slaves, whether or
not christians must be circumcised, and how many angels can dance on the 
head of a pin.  

The trouble with rationality is that it's just like your computer; garbage in,
garbage out.  If you start with a premise that is false, then all you end
up with is castles in the air. 

>There's nothing wrong with ignorance -- we all start out
>with it -- but on the other hand, it's not really something
>to flaunt.

So why do you keep doing it, then? 

Believe it or not, the quintessence of all wisdom does not lie in playing
the Uncle-Tom/Sensitive-Male-Protector for a bunch of women of whom a 
sizable portion would like to make you a second-class citizen.

- db

PS. WHY is it that the worst male-bashers on the net are always men????

  
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion