From: creilly@maths.tcd.ie (Colman Reilly)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Vanilla Sex in Canada (was Re: Japanese Women's Lib)
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:56:36 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

(I've deleted liberally, but I don't think I've lost any of the context)

In <1992Apr14.143404.25229@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.054215.20104@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr14.015028.591@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) writes:
>> >
>> >wing party which really separates Canada from the U.S., has a policy of
>> >favoring women in selecting its candidates, and it has gained in power in
>> >recent years.

>They "discriminate" in favour of women in order to bring the proportion of
>women in Parliament a bit closer to their proportion in the general public. 
>There isn't anything wrong with that........you are under no obligation to
>vote for them . 

Their chances to be selected for a post are being increased because of their
sex. Is this not the defintion of sexual discrimination?

>> >
>  My brother reports that the radical
>> >feminist element on his campus is repeatedly making death threats against those
>> >men they don't like (a group often encompassing all men).  My best friend (a
>> >man) makes the unqualified assertion that "men are the problem (in society)".
>> 

>Hey! Feminists can be bigots too, just like anyone else. These is nothing
>wrong with feminism. Bigotry is bad, though and is serves no one's interests
>to confuse the two.

Ummmm . . classical feminism, as it is often portrayed and in fact as it
often portrays itself, is intrinsically hostile to men. It is based on
bigotry: the premise that all men are evil oppressors and that all the
"sisters" are wonnderful. Except those misguided souls that betray the
cause, of course.
[reference to painting depicting a menstruating woman being censored on
"degradation" grounds.]

>Like you, I wouldn't find that degrading. But ask my wife and you would get a
>different answer altogether. Degrading is in the eye of the beholder and women
>have been taught - mainly by their mothers - for thousands of years to be
>ashamed of menstruation. Not all women, not all mothers - just most. So if the
>majority of them see it as degrading - as may well be the case - or even a
>large minority, then should we ignore thier views?

If a large number of Nazis obect to coverage of the holocaust should we
igore their views?


>> 
>> Yep.  Canada is the little sister of the U.S., fuzzy and nice.
>> Yet, women here are horrifically oppressed...yet it's the most
>> livable nation in the world...yet...
>> 
>> -S. Schultz

>NZ is the same. A lot depends on who the woman is and who the men in her life
>are/were. The way I see it, anyone who is CONSIDERATE of fellow human beings -
>regardless of gender - can't go wrong.
> 
>Steve

Irelands _just_ the same. Except lots of them oppress themselves by being
Catholic. Much more convenient! :-(

I'm not feminist. I'm equalitist. So don't even _think_ of flaming me for
sexism.

Colman
--
----------------------------
Colman Reilly (creilly@maths.tcd.ie)
c/o School of Mathematics,18.05 Westland Row,Trinity College,Dublin.