From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Mr. Kaldis's "misogyny"
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:54:00 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <Aug.30.22.57.09.1992.22622@romulus.rutgers.edu>
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>Every so often, the charge is put forth that I am, somehow, a
>"misogynist".

Because your posts seem to indicate that you consider women to be
objects. Because your homophobia is well-documented. Because
homophobia and misogyny are closely connected.

>Such a charge is completely baseless, nevertheless,
>some see fit to advance it in an attempt to refute the timeless ideas
>and traditions upon which civilized western societies are based --
>never mind the fact that these ideas are irrefutable.

No idea is irrefutable. The only timeless ideas are the truths. And
men do not have the ability to prove truths. They can only disprove
supposed truths.

>Shift the focus, then. They suppose that if they can discredit the one
>who is standing up for and defending these ideas, they can somehow discredit
>the ideas themselves.  This is, essentially, nothing more than the old
>ad hominem argument.

Nevermind the fact that if you didn't spew your nonsense about homosexuality
and women, everyone would leave you alone. The ad hominem attacks, in response
to your "ad homo-nem" attacks, have largely taken a different direction than
those who try vainly to reason with you.

>But I would like, at this point, to comment on an example of true
>misogyny that is all too prevalent (and too overlooked) within our
>society -- one that is, moreover, applauded by those who would like to
>portray me as a misogynist.  I am talking, of course, about the
>aberrant practice of homosexuality.

You of course mean homophobia, not homosexuality. But let's amuse you
for a while. It may be a long while---goodness knows how slowly you read.
Let's play devil's advocate for a bit; let's say you're right. Homosexuals
are misogynists. Why? Because they wish not, for the most part, to engage
in sex with them? Is this the basic nature of dealing with women? Having
sex with them?

Now, turning off the devil's advocate, I propose the antithesis of Kaldis'
childish supposition: that HOMOPHOBIA is strongly connected to misogyny.
What makes a fag basher (besides the cowardice of having to hide behind
a tire iron)? Those who are most likely to beat up lesbians and gay men
are most likely to beat up their girlfriends. Those who mock homosexuals
are most likely to insist on the male making important decisions in a
relationship. Those who mock the supposed femininity of some gay men
are really engaging in an attack on femininity in general, how it is
something for "men to flee from". Those who fag bash quite often regard
women as items in their sexual collection.

>What has brought this to mind is a recent posting by Clayton Cramer
>where he pointed out that the drag queens who march in so-called "gay
>pride" parades are basically an insulting parody of femininity.  Now I
>don't mean to suggest here that male homosexuality in all of its
>facets is an expression of misogyny, but it does indeed represent a
>profound failure on the part of some "men" to properly relate to
>women, particularly in the most intimate ways.  The homosexual is
>essentially a person who, for some reason, cannot come to terms with
>his own sexuality, and has turn to an aberrant behavior in an attempt
>to repudiate it.  Integral to such behavior, to either a greater or
>lesser extent, is misogyny.

Not at all. Even holding stereotypes of gay men, many of them ADORE
female performers (need I name them?). Many of them adore their sisters
and mothers. Many of them have their most meaningful friendships with
(straight women). Many gay men appear to relate more easily with women
on a platonic level.

Is this misogyny? I think not. If to you misogyny means the failure of
a man to become sexually intimate with a woman, then I suggest that you
do not begin to comprehend the many facets of womanhood. Women are not
there to just service you sexually and be emotional supporters. They
want the same in return, and mutual respect.

>I would to quote here a passage from George Gilders _Men_and_Marriage_
>(Pelican Publishing Co., Gretna, LA, 1986):
>
>     Intercourse remorselessly sets the bounds of androgyny: to have a
>     female, a male must to some extent feel himself a man.  A man who
>     does not feel like a man may seek to have a man.  Men who feel
>     abased may enjoy the idea of a specific enactment and affirmation
>     of their abasement.  Men incapable of deep sexuality may be
>     relieved ... to pursue sexual activity without the burden of
>     initiative or personality or human ties.
>
>What kind of man does the homosexual consider to be his ideal fantasy
>partner partner?  Many homosexuals have said that their ideal would be
>the epitome of masculinity -- a man who most exemplifies every
>masculine trait: the football player, the construction worker -- a man
>is most unquestionably and in every way a man's man (no pun intended,
>but I'll take credit for it anyway).  Why is this, and what does it
>mean?

It means that men and women, gay bisexual and straight, have gender-identity
feelings which run the gamut and are not necessarily connected to their
primary sexual orientations. This explains why most cross-dressers are
heterosexuals, how gay men prefer to gamut---from very feminine men to
very masculine men, how straight women prefer to gamut---from very feminine
men to macho jerks, how straight men prefer the gamut---from dominatrices
to submissive housewives. It's not black and white, Ted.

>Before we answer this, we have to ask, will such a man be on the
>"giving" end, or on the "receiving" end?  Well, it doesn't matter.  It
>is to such men that homosexuals (in an earlier life) had found
>themselves losing out to (whether such a loss was actually acted out
>or was only perceived).  The fantasy of such a man on the giving end
>represents the enactment of the homosexual's perceived abasement at
>the hands of the one who brought it about so long ago, while having
>him on the receiving end, represents a symbolic final victory over the
>one who has caused him to this torturous life of torment.

"In an earlier life"??? This paragraph is ridiculous. Not only that, but
it clearly shows your misogyny---that it is bad for a man to be passive
in intercourse, for in doing so they would become like women.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43767 ca.politics:7444 ba.politics:5039 soc.motss:38223 ba.motss:1535