From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminist Jokes
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:43:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Nov6.070504.24838@leland.Stanford.EDU= farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
=In article <23650@galaxy.ucr.edu= starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
==
==I said what I said for a number of reasons formost of which is what 
==feminists on the net and in print say about men, society, and history.  
==I feel that women who feel about men in the way that these women do
==could not have meaningful relationships with men in general.  They do
==not like men and some even hate men, at best are indifferent.  

=You feel this way.  I feel that many so-called hetero men hate women
=very much.

I feel from your posts you hate white hetrosexual men in general.

Gorden Fitch thinks I'm full of shit on this as well as a poor speller.
You seem to feel the same way.  But I am not talking about men hating
women nor about women hating men nor an X's hating Y's.  I am not talking 
about how women feel. I am talking about the attitudes of "some" perhaps many 
feminists.  The way in which these feminists define men emotionally
and spiritually exhibits deep hate and fear.  In many ways it is not
unlike how blacks were defined as sub-human by many in the past.
I feel that this type of philosopy cannot nuture meaningful relationships 
between this type of feminist and men and I would say between themselves and
the vast majority of women.

==And so I feel that women who are like that could not have much interest 
==in meaningful relationships with men, could hardly have much interest in 
==sexual ones, save for animal gratification.

=Fucking only for the sake of fucking is bad?

It is shallow but I don't feel it is "bad".  How I feel about sex is
my business and how you feel is yours, the twain may never meet.  I
do not deny you your choice and am indifferent to other peoples sexual
choices.  But, and this is a big but, feminists like youself make a
big deal out of the sexual choices of others, right down the the very 
details of the dating game.  Feminism is very much centered around
the sexual behavior of people. ( Rape, Sexual Harassment, Choice,
pin-ups, types of sex people have, Pornography, Homosexuality,
cosmetics, clothes, and on and on.)  

I not saying that the issues that 
feminists seem to thrive on are without merit.  I am saying that 
feminist arguments are not without fault.  I object to feminism
trying to define men in as many negitive ways as it can?  One of the
most powerful is the sexual image that feminists create of man as
a sexual prevert, seeking to dominate women.  That the sexual habits
of men with women are exploitive acts ment to make women submissive
ect. ect.  I believe you have put forth such arguments youself.
To me it is pure and simple anti-men bigotry.

Many feminist arguments are based on the mistaken notion that the 
sexual motivations that men have are basically for aniamal gradification.
This has been used to exaplain why men rape.  When I used It above  I was
saying in a sence that women are not above such motivations.  And that
to me women who do not like men but have a sexual need for men would
be reduced to the most basic motivations for sex.  You seem to agree
with me.  Agreement in your statement above that sex for the sake of
sex is ok.  

==Do you really think that I give a care who sleeps with whom?  You just 
==don't get it.  That fact that many feminist are lesbians does not escape
==me and I do think about it, but not on such a shallow level.  I have given
==some thought to how lesbian feminists influence feminist thought especially
==that which deals with sexual theories and the anti-man bias that seems
==to be woven into feminist thought.

=On such a shallow level?  Then tell us what you think, without the
=rabid anti-feminist remarks that your posts generally consist of.
=Steinem is hetero, Wolfe is hetero, Faludi is hetero.  I believe
=MacKinnon is hetero.

The part of my post you did not quote is the part about Susie Bright
and lesbians that the person I responded to brought up.  On the other
hand being anti-men is not the sole domain of lesbians.  As you have
shown above. 

Ok, I am going to have to do some book-learning.  That may take a 
while.  But as for the general drift, what I suggested, was that the
fact that some feminists, and many Radical Feminists, are lesbians;
that their sexual orientation will affect how they veiw men.  Their
view of relationships with men will be very different from that of
hetrosexual women.  So will their political views.  My questions relate
to the bias interjected into feminist thought based on sexual orientation.
This is important to understanding their point of view. 

Most of my knowledge has been gained by listening to lesbian feminists,
on radio talk shows, on radio stations like KPFA (Berkerly)  and
KPFK (Los Angeles), lesbian feminists on the net, in print and in
real life.  There seems to be a very strong anti-man bias in their
way of thinking.  Could this strong anti-man bias be related to
the fact that they are lesbians?  If so are how valid are these
arguments of feminist thought for the rest of us?  Should we
base social change and behavior changes on these arguments?

Within a month or two I will post some of these arguments from
radical lesbian feminists after I do some research to get specifics.
Free free to post you own in the meantime.

=All that I've seen so far is your (and Sheaffer's) insistence that
=most feminists are man-hating lesbians.  Sheaffer even manages to take
=a stat that Masters and Johnson discovered long before the feminazis
=ever became infamous to "show" that feminists are mostly lesbians who
=hate penises.

I never said most femininsts are man-hating lesbians.  Not all lesbians 
are feminists so leave them out of it.  I never said that there is
anything wrong with being homosexual.  A great deal of feminist thought
has been centered around sexual matters.  You yourself feel it is important
to tie sexest notions, as you define them, to white hetorsexual men.  
Clearly you feel sexual orientation has much to do with sexism and 
anti-femininsm. And I dare say you have gone far enough to make it
seem anti-women.  If you can question the influence of sexuallity
on feminist issues why can't I?

Let me clear something up.  I don't care how a lesbian feels about 
a penis, I really don't.  How she feels is how she feels.  It is
not my business to care.  It is her sex life not mine.  I don't even
care if she hate's penises.   I would think that most lesbians are
sexually indifferent to men.

We have got to leave people's sexual choices alone.  Lesbians have a
right to be who they are sexually.  What they do not have is a right
to project how they feel due to their sexual orientation onto
the general public as a whole.  They do have a right to feel anyway
that they want within their own group.  To try to impose their views
as the view of all women is wrong.  My argument is not unlike the one
you have that hetrosexuals should not define sexuality in terms of
themsevles for the whole.  On that I agree with you.

starbuck

=="How many men does it take to change a lightbulb?"
==Well how many?

=None.  They're sitting in the dark, bitching about how their ex-wives
=took all the lightbulbs.

good job!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism