From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:32:16 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Oct31.185635.16185@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <G7GSBAXP@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct24.225336.26629@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
>>posts an attack upon feminism and political correctness.  It was long and
>>detailed, and while I do not wish to repost it in its entirety, I would like to
>>respond to its general character.
>
>No, you respond to distinct points, points were not addressed in the post.
>I chased down the reference, and just about all of your post -not- a
>response to anything I had posted. To be kind, it is a work of fiction.

I disagree.

>>Too often liberals are attacked under the heading 'pc' as if an intolerance of
>>bigotry were somehow a sign of hypocritical close-mindedness.  This insistence
>>upon the ideological purity of one's opponents is a useful ploy, but one which
>>should not be taken for more than what it is: rhetoric.  We live in a world in
>>which we must try to be as open-minded as possible but cannot be expected to
>>allow ourselves to be cowed into submission by appeals to this virtue.  The
>>combat of injustice must begin with an understanding of one's enemy, but
>>cannot be left at that, for that would allow one's enemy (the cruel oppressor)
>>liberties he/she should not be allowed.
>
>Does your definition of "open-minded"ness allow for things like actually
>reading others posts before attacking? Quoting is not only allowed here, it
>is actually -expected-. Your post is 100% quote and context free.

That is not my concept of open-mindedness.

>>Mr. Payne's attack seemed centered around the fact that political correctness
>>and feminism are about power.  
>
>First, there was no attack. Second, how about posting the text that leads
>you to this conclusion?
>
>>                             Should justice be only a pleasant, admirable
>>theory wholly disconnected from practice?  Mr. Payne apparently believes it
>>should be -- liberalism and feminism should not be threatening he seems to say.
>
>Post what I did say, I insist.
>
>>Well, they'd be damned useless, if they didn't achieve this goal.  The only
>>difference between liberalism and feminism and other ideologies is their
>>inclusive and just precepts.
>
>Not all feminists want justice. And communism made the same claims. But
>communism in action (socialism) has not turned out to be just, nor a desirable
>system to live under. 
> 
>>I take exception with Mr. Payne's categorization of feminism as man-hating.
>
>And I take exception to this false claim. You have a severe perception
>problem dude.
>
>>When one points to the virtues of femininity and the vices of masculinity, the
>>purpose of this exercise is not to imply that masculinity lacks virtue and
>>feminity lacks vice.  
>
>Why not look at the virtues and vices of both masculinity and feminity.
>Of what value is a comparison of the virtues of one group with the vices of
>another. Not that this is really valid, as this has turned out to be a
>comparison of stereotypes.
>
>>                    I dare any feminist to say that with a straight face in
>>normal conversation.  (I rescind that offer.  I know I have gotten into moods
>>when I have considered that theory myself, but it is normal to reach imbalanced
>>states of mind given sufficient provocation.)
>
>I hope that after this post, your balance was restored.

I guess I deserved that.

>>Nay, feminism is not man-hating.  
>
>The claim has been made that -some- parts of feminism are man-hating. Not
>all of it. Can you disprove it? (and not with stereotypes)

One cannot prove contentions of this nature without resorting to silliness.
The point I was trying to make was that it need not be and often is not.  Let
us not continue to past one another.

>>                               Society lauds the masculine and condemns that
>>which is feminine. Society forces us to be lopsided, for while masculine
>>virtue and feminine vice are openly proclaimed, outside of bastions of feminism
>>the contrapuntal feminine virtues and masculine vices are spoken in a hush and
>>dismissed quickly afterwards.
>
>Have you been outside lately? Watched TV?

Don't watch TV except for the elections.  I have been outside though.  I have
seen a lot of sexual harrassment.
 
>>Mr. Payne's remarks are aimed at disempowering the feminists and liberals.
>
>Which remarks are these?

I forget myself; I'll try and track them down.

>>He has clearly delineated his position as anti-liberal/anti-feminism.  He
>>perhaps wishes to provoke a reaction from emotional women to bolster his male
>>ego.  This is an amusing sport.  
>
>It would be less amusing than your idea of inventing straw-men arguments,
>claiming that they were presented by someone else (myslef in this case), then
>attacking them. I invite you to back up your claims of what I have said.
>And I would really like for you to keep me better informed as to what I
>actually mean. I seem to have thought that I meant something else.

Fair enough.

>>                             I know; I have done it myself.  I don't know
>>how hardened he is in his beliefs.  Perhaps he will realize the evil of his
>>ways, or perhaps he is a dyed-in-the-wool chauvinist.  
>
>For starters, I believe anyone willing to make wide sweeping generalizations
>based upon a few posts is an idiot. Few are as two-dimensional as you seem
>to be.

That is a sweeping generalization in and of itself.  Even intelligent people
go off half-cocked some times.  Point taken, nonetheless.

>>                                                             Either way, his
>>philosophy is bad news and smells like raw fish left out too long.  
>
>No, it is your straw-man philosopny that you are arguing. But here I do agree 
>with you, it stinks.
>
>>                                                                   As for Mr.
>>Payne himself, having no knowledge of him outside his post, I have no reason to
>>doubt he is a man of fine and outstanding character.
>
>No, not even that, you have completely misrepresented my post as well. But it
>is interesting that after mentioning the "evil of his[my] ways", calling me
>a "died-in-the-wool chauvinist", and saying that my philosophy stinks, you
>end with the above sentence. 

I did not call you a "died-in-the-wool chauvinist."  That last sentence was
included because I had a suspicion I may have misjudged you.

>>-dave
>
>Rich
>
>payner@netcom.com

Apologies are in order.  
-dave