From: mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Feminism
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:14:46 GMT

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:
>>>      It is sometimes said of RL's use of "feminazi" that there is a
>>>certain kind of extremist feminist that it appropriately refers to.
>>>While there are _some_ feminists that can be called extremists, I
>>>think that RL is trying to smear _all_ feminists, since he has not
>>>described what he considers legitimate feminist positions.

On the contrary, while he may have never spelled out a lithmus test for
legitimate Feminism, he *has* stated-- in excruciating detail-- the agenda of
the 25-30 Feminazis. Evidently many who post to this board do not actually
*listen* to the show, or at least not often enough, because on numerous
occasions women have called him with their own opinions of Feminism, which
he has given his stamp of approval.

>>The problem is, Mr. Limbaugh conciders ANY woman who does not fit the
>>narrow and bigoted definition of "homemaker" as a radical feminist.

That's so off-base it's almost humorous. Have you ever heard Rush's
opinion of Mary Matalin? And that's just one of untold many possible examples
of someone Rush admires as a true Feminist. One need not be a homemaker to
earn Rush's respect as a woman. One must simply respect that profession
for what it is, and not go out of her way to savage the those who "bake
cookies and give teas" as Hilary Clinton (and those at Wellesley who
objected to Barbara Bush) has done. (To avoid tri-post confusion, remember
that the next comment responds to the same comment that this one responds to)

>    I wouldn't say that. I would say that those women leave him at a non-
>plus since his categorization system obviously falls short in attempting 
>to describe them. Rush goes out of his way to disclaim his jibes at 
>feminazis as refering to only a very small group of people; he uses similar 
>tactics when talking about radical feminists and environmentalist "wackos".
>Essentially he makes big sweeping statements about what those movements 
>stand for, and then he backpeddles and admits that his comments only apply 
>to a very few of the most outrageous leaders of those movements.

>>In other words, any woman who works outside the home, or who is in
>>any way politically active (with the exception of Phyllis Schlafley (who's
>>picture, I understand, sits beside his bed, and gives him an object on
>>which to base his sexual fantisies (grin)))

I'd love to know where you came up with that one. Rush has been very,
shall we say, complimentary, of many women, but I don't remember Phyllis
Schlafly as one of them.

>    This is where you loose most of your credibility. To claim, even in 
>jest, that *anyone* could base sexual fantasies on a photograph of Mrs 
>Schlafley is patently absurd.

Ditto.

>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

mlbruce@husc.harvard.edu
The opinions I express are not necessarily those of this fine University
or of the People's Republic of Cambridge...
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6176 alt.politics.elections:14863 talk.abortion:39837 alt.sex:31566 alt.politics.clinton:8080 alt.politics.bush:7418 talk.politics.misc:48978