From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Summary: The Adventure Continues
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:00:59 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh



Sorry to include so much of the original text folks, but I thought that
my reply wouldn't make much sense without it!  And believe me, this is
getting weirder by the moment.  So sit back, relax and prepare to enter:

                            THE TWILIGHT ZONE


In article <MUFFY.92Sep28135532@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>>>If you want examples of men's groups being seen as threatening to women's
>>>>groups, get a subscription to Playboy.  (Check out the copies for the blind
>>>>at the local library if the pictures offend you).

>>> That is very funny, I must say.  I have been looking at the pictures in
>>> Playboy since I was about 8-9 years old; my stepfather subscribed and my
>>> mother would let us look at the cartoons.  Are you, by any chance,
>>> exhibiting some assumptions about feminists here?  I don't find the
>>> pictures particularly enthralling or exciting, but I have never been
>>> offended by them.

>>Funny?  Muffy, it's a riot!  Some feminists are down right rabid about
>>nudity and sexuality.

> I see it's those logic classes again.  Since "some feminists" are this
> way, you think that I must be this way, regardless of what I say or do
> in the matter.  


Muffy, you are the *only* person arguing this point.  You accuse ME of
making assumptions about YOU?  Look in the mirror!

I included the "Check out the..." (see quoted material above) sentence in
our first go-around because there are feminists that dismiss the articles in
Playboy because of the pictorials.  I feel that the articles can easily
stand alone as a valid source of information about men's groups.  And that
*WAS* the information you were looking for before you decided to twist the
discussion into this vein.

But, since you brought the subject of whether feminists do/don't like
Playboy up, I thought I would report on some honest to God, on-the-street
and in-your-face FEMINISTS that had made their way into the pages of the
PITT news.

After all, this is alt.feminism.  We should try to report on the activites
of feminists, should we not?

These people claim to be feminists and are protesting for feminists causes!
So I tack all of this on to my next article.  (I just didn't believe that
reports about these feminists would make it into soc.feminism -- even if I
got permission and had the inclination to post the original article from the
PITT NEWS).

I can't help it if you don't like these people.  I never said that they were
you.  I'm sorry if you feel you have to defend these people.  You don't.
At least, not to me.  

These are the type of feminists that DON'T like Playboy.  They claim that it
causes men to rape.  They protest.  They make the news.  They cause me to
inclose disclaimers about the pictures in Playboy and note that you CAN get
the articles WITHOUT the pictures.

I never said anything about YOUR PERSONAL views because I DON'T CARE about
YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS on Playboy.  Believe it or not, this had NOTHING to do
with YOU, Muffy!  That's right!  Until you twisted it around to try to make
it look that way.  Frankly, your personal view of Playboy just isn't that
important to me!  Really!

I only included the line "Check out the copies for the blind at the local
library if the pictures offend you)" to answer those who would dismiss my
source.  The "you" used is the English plural "you".

I think you should also understand that when I post something to the net,
I assume that it's going to be read by a number of people.  Otherwise, I
would just send e-mail.  So I often include phrases directed at the "unseen"
readers.  Perhaps this "you" is the source of the confusion.

Now, to get back to our original discussion:  You (Muffy and others) can get
the information you (Muffy) are looking for in the pages of Playboy, with or
without the pictures.  It's a good source for information about many causes.
Many of them are liberal causes, but that's no reason to dismiss Playboy
either!

AND don't say that I'm calling you (MUFFY) a liberal now!!!! :-)


> Well, it seems pointless to respond to this sort of distorted vision, so
> I will stop.  

Thanks!  I don't think I'll be following up to your posts in the future
either.  You've taken the words right out of my mouth (or perhaps right out
of my fingers, as the case may be).

> If you're ever inclined to find out
> what my views about pornography *actually* are, as opposed to what you
> would like to *claim* that they are, feel free to ask.

No thanks.  I'm not interested.  I make no claim whatsoever about your
personal views or tastes on/in pornography.  That's far too personal and I'm
just not interested.  It has nothing to do with feminism.  It would be
inappropriate for me to ask or for you to volunteer such information in this
newsgroup.  Please feel free to post it to soc.feminism since you're a
moderator there if you feel it's appropriate to feminism.


>>So it's not unreasonable to assume that some feminists may not approve of
>>Playboy's pictures.  Perhaps you do not feel that these people are true
>>feminists.  That's an argument that only "feminists" can debate.

> Surely not?  It has been debated endlessly by anti-feminists

Sorry if you didn't catch my meaning here.  What I was referring to with the
word "debate" was whether the "Men Against Rape and Pornography" were
actually feminists -- not the debate about pornography itself.  Or perhaps I
just don't understand what you are saying now.  No matter.

I take people at their word when they claim to be feminists.  And I'll leave
the issue of whether or not pornography is to bad/or good for feminists to
you feminists -- the ones that like it and the ones that don't.


>Instead you (yes, you personally) *tell* us that that cannot possibly be
>what we believe, if we are feminists.

I think you did misunderstand the meaning of my "That's an argument that
only "feminists" can debate".  No matter.  This is the net after all.


> Amazing, because it was people like *you*, who deny that women have any
> problems, who made *me* become a feminist.

Sorry, Muffy, you'll have to look for Darth Vador somewhere else.  I fought
long and hard for the ERA, with my time and money back in 1976.  We did
manage to get an ERA in the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I gladly signed and passed out the petitions at the Folk Festival this year
to petition the Congress to pass legislation reaffirming the rights granted
in Roe vs Wade.

I hardly deny that women have problems.  Some women have more than others,
of course.  Much more in fact.  But I also see that men have problems too.

If people like me caused you to become a feminist, I guess it was by my
setting an good example.

I'm glad -- really pleased -- that you became a feminist.  But you don't
have me thank for that.  I'm beginning to believe that you've become what
you are all on your own!

But if I were *make* you into anything, I'd encourge you to go beyond
feminism.  Be more than "just" a feminist.  Be both a feminist and a
"masculinist".  If the term wasn't already taken by a religious group, I'd
urge you to be a HUMANIST!

>>I truly believe that if one's own speech is to be free, one must tolerate
>>the free speech of others.

> Indeed.   I believe this as well.  Not that you will "tolerate" my
> saying so.  You will immediately tell me that this is not what I
> believe, no matter how often I say it.

I'm really thrilled that we agree on something.  Finally.

In all seriousness, you DO need to chill out.  There's only one thing I'm
going to tell you that "you believe".  I believe that you believe that you
are seeing boogy-persons.  Well, at least *I* think you are seeing
boogy-persons where none exist.  I have no hard evidence that you actually
believe this. ;-)

If you really need to attack some "anti-feminists" let me point you to
articles written by honest-to-God "anti-feminists" in the National Review
this month.  An article by David Horowitz addresses why women shouldn't be
allowed in "combat roles" -- read Jet Fighter Pilots.

Do you know how hard it is to break into the commercial airlines if you do
not have heavy-jet experience?  (Read "if you aren't a Jet Fighter Pilot"?).
The positions that the military offers women greatly reduces their chance of
landing such commercial airline postions.  And this is just one reason among
many that women need to be equal to men in the military.

These are the people you should be going after.  These people are not only
anti-feminist, they are anti-men as well.

People like Hillel, Brontis and myself are flaming left wing commie-pinko
liberals by comparison to the authors in the National Review.  Seriously, I
would recommend that you get a subscription to the magazine so that you can
honestly know your enemy.  The people that you meet, here on the net, are
not anti-feminists.  They may be pro-men, but the are nothing of the caliber
of the people who are writing in the National Review.

In fact, I can't think of many people posting to the net who even come close
to being truly anti-feminist.  If you are trying to hone your skills, you
are being cheated by taking on people on this newsgroup.

[Muffy lists her contributions to various organizations]
>There are probably a couple of others, but I can't think of any more that I
>contribute regularly to.  

Well I'm glad to see that you are so generous with your funds.  Believe it
or not, but that doesn't really surprise me about you.

Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.misc