Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> Yes I have, but I don't think that this battle ever came to the degree
> of anti-male sentiment that I think it has become. I know I don't have a
> problem with equal pay for equal work or women in corporate positions or
> proper punishment for sexual violence or harassment, but incidents
> against a woman that are deplorable have been used to advance an agenda
> that is being forced down everyone's throats. The Tailhook incident is
> now being used to say, "well you better let women into combat now to show
> us that you are committed to punishing the guilty officers" which has
> nothing to do with the punishment of the officers at all.

So, why, specifically, should women not be allowed in combat?  

Also, what is particularly wrong with militant tactics to achieve
social goals.  You and I may not care for them, but change does
not occur without a lot of stress on the system.  How does that
stress get applied?   Of course, there is the assertion that perhaps
there simply should be no change.
> 
> Another example is the Detroit Public School System had recently tried
> to establish classes in which black boys could be taught by black male
> teachers. The purpose of it was to bring the boys up in an environment
> with strong male role models and decreasing the likelihood that the boys
> would enter the world of crime. However it was a lot of feminist groups
> that demanded that girls be allowed in the classroom, thereby
> obfuscating the purpose of such classes in the first place. Of course
> the Leadership raises hell whenever an all-women school is forced by
> economics to admit men. In other words men should have women included
> (except perhaps the bathroom), but women should have their own space to
> themselves untarnished by testosterone. That's an example of the "war of
> the sexes" engaged by the feminists as perceived by Rush and me.

Yes, there is certainly a lot of nonsense involved in this sort of
social engineering.

> 
> But I don't think that's the major problem that Rush has. Recently he
> has been describing on his show moves by the NYPSS (Public School
> System) to have reading literature on ... I think it's "Heather's Two
> Mommies." And I'm not referring to the sitcom "My Two Dads" either. At
> the least I can see the intent is to encourage tolerance; at worst, the
> book glorifies lesbianism. This is one thing that I remember Rush has a
> definite problem regarding "lesbian rights."

This whole problem of proper education is making the problems with
public education real evident.  Nobody can agree on what the proper
way of raising children is.  My opinion is that stuff like this
is probably going to destroy public education.

> I guess another example of the "militant feminist" movement on a more
> personal scale deals with a good friend of mine who doesn't want any man
> to open a door for her in courtesy (unless she needs to, but that's not
> "courtesy" to her). She interprets a man holding the door open for her
> as an affirmation that men are physically more powerful than women are
> and thus have dominion over them. I have always been told, "you BETTER
> hold doors open for older people and especially for women as common
> courtesy, or you're a rude scum-bucket." I just can't win. [She does let
> me hold the door open for her because we're good friends and she knows
> I'm nice to just about everybody who's nice to me.]

Just don't hold doors for anyone.  There are very few people in
the world that are incapable of opening doors.  I HATE it when
people hold doors for me, because it forces me to acknowledge
their existence.
 
doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh