From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,sci.bio,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences?
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:29:15 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Followups directed away from sci.bio and sci.skeptic (it's inappropriate for
those newsgroups) and away from soc.women (I doubt any of the readers who do
not also read soc.men care).

In article <1992Aug18.205731.4611@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>In article <v03mgxb.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.225224.13677@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>	What feminists want is a fair chance to achieve, although some
>>>of their proposed methods might be seen as reverse discrimination.
>>
>>This is often claimed, but the laws and guidelines drafted by certain
>>feminist lawyers (Andrea Dworkin and someone else) are even more sexist
>>than the problems they propose to deal with.
>	I think it's a little unfair to take an extremist like Dworkin as
>typical of the feminist movement as a whole.

This is really a straw man.  The issue is not what is "typical" of feminism.
The issue is that Dworkin and MacKinnon's efforts to pass unconstitutional
laws call into question Loren's blanket assertion.

>  I think you'll find fringe
>goofballls in this group as you will in any other group.  Would you have us
>believe that all black civil-rights leaders agree with the Rev. Al Sharpton?
>Or that David Duke speaks for all political conservatives?

As others have mentioned, Republicans could not have been less tolerant of
David Duke without violating his civil rights, and quite a few went so far.

A much better example would be Pat Buchanan.  Like Dworkin, he has a minority
following that is still pretty large in numbers.  Like Dworkin, he is a 
vicious, hateful little egomaniac who can work a crowd like P.T. Barnum.
Like Dworkin, he is frequently invited to give keynote and other speeches
at national meetings of the parent group.

Is it reasonable to judge the Republican party by Pat Buchanan?  To a certain
degree, yes.  No, one cannot judge every single Republican by him.  There are
many Republicans, for example, who are not homophobes.  However, if a 
Republican were to come up and tell me that Republicanism is all about wanting
to treat everyone equally without regard to sexual orientation, it would be
quite reasonable to point at Pat Buchanan and say, "Nonsense."  Similarly,
if a feminist says that feminism is all about wanting fairness, it would be 
quite reasonable to point at Dworkin and say, "Rubbish."

>  I'm not that
>familiar with the men's rights movement but I'd be willing to bet they have
>their wackos as well.

Certainly they do, and anyone who tells you that men's movements are always 
about equality of the sexes is either stupid or a liar.  Consequently, people
with a few functioning neurons are reluctant to make such claims.  On the other
hand, large numbers of feminists routinely make these kinds of claims about
feminism.

>>My point is that the feminists who are doing the most are (IMHO) anti-male,
>>not pro-female. I am not making a theoretical argument, but rather mentioning
>>what I have observed. If your observations are different, fine. They do not 
>>invalidate mine.
>>
>	We can all IMHO ourselves to death here.  Do you actually have any
>empirical evidence that most women who identify themselves as "feminist"
>actually agree with extremists like Dworkin?  Most of the ones I know
>personally don't, but that hardly counts as objective evidence, of course.

It's not "most feminists."  It's "feminists who are doing the most."  Numbers
don't matter unless the people involved are willing to get involved.  If there
is one Dworking battering down the doors at the legislature, does it really 
matter if there are a million rational feminists quietly disagreeing with
her while sitting at home watching C-SPAN?

For what it's worth, most of the feminists I know (maybe 80%) don't exactly
agree with Dworkin either.  However, it does not seem to cause them to oppose
her, and it does not seem to prevent them from opposing any man who does
oppose her.

As for empirical evidence, the Dworkin/MacKinnon laws are a matter of public 
record.  There are also various studies by the ACLU, and I have a copy of 
a letter by the head of a regional office of the Feminist Anti-Censorship
Taskforce describing how they have been opposed by mainstream feminist
organizations.

-EMP
Xref: sparky soc.women:15291 alt.activism:14857 alt.sex:26724 alt.sex.bondage:15896