From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:43:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.220128.10494@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <C0JsLB.IuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

: >	In saying het women have more reason to hate men because they are
: >	around them more, does implicitly assume there are odious traits
: >	in men in general to be exposed to or not exposed to. 

: ...Not necessarily. I am a het woman, I don't hate men; however, I've
: known a few that did. And mostly these were women who had spent a
: good part of their lives assuming an artificial personality with
: men, for economic reasons.

: I think that if I had had to be a courtesan with women I would have
: ended up hating women; with men, hating men; and with green space
: aliens, hating them the most! There's nothing like faking orgasm (or
: even friendship) to make you hate the person you're doing it for!

>So, implicit in *your* Cosmology is the notion that A) The only reason
>women enter into long-term relationships with men is for money, that
>there's no possibility they might REALLY fall for the guy; their orgasms
>must be faked, etc.; and B), any kind of dependence upon a man is
>degrading, horrid, unthinkable.

	I think it was unpleasant men that she was talking about and
of adopting a fake personality to please them.

	And Robert Sheaffer, do you _seriously_ think that men ought
to be one-man welfare agencies? That's what happens when women are
economically dependent on men.

	I think it is very tacky for men to complain about women being
after their money while doing nothing to ensure that women can be
economically independent of men.

>Which just brings us back to the old notion that today's feminism represents
>the lament of those women who are themselves quite unsuited to the sex 
>roles implicit in heterosexuality.

	WHAT sex roles? Heterosexuality is only having members of the
opposite sex as one's sexual preference. Nothing whatsoever is implied
about sex roles. A "masculine" women can be attracted to men, while a
"feminine" man can be attracted to women.

...They're attracted to men, yet on the
>other hand, *infuriated* at the suggestion that they should act "more
>feminine" than their man!

	Why is that implied by being attracted to men?

...So they really don't quite fit in anywhere, and
>can't seem to find a role-model that works. Of course, the MAJORITY of
>women, who are not infuriated by male sexual advances, and who do NOT
>expect to earn more/advance higher/accomplish more than does their man,
>somehow are untroubled by such notions.

	A majority? And how can you be sure that it is due to a lack
of other options? You seem to think that women are genetically
programmed to be world-class wimps.

...As are, we must again point out,
>virtually all women OUTSIDE North America.

	What proof do you have of that?

	There aren't too many women who throw away satisfying careers
just to be housewives in this day and age. Even right-wing women like
Phyllis Schlafly and Marilyn Quayle and Connaught Marshner and Beverly
LaHaye don't do that (The latter two are discussed in gory detail by
Susan Faludi in _Backlash_, and the sight of two career women
professing to reject female careerism certainly has excellent
entertainment value, if nothing else).

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13004 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11515 alt.politics.clinton:19598 alt.politics.bush:15522 alt.politics.homosexuality:8951