From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:42:22 GMT

In article <michael.726478730@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <1993Jan7.020139.3171@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>And I keep pointing out that prominent feminist posters here keep saying
>>that this is not feminism, and that this is at odds with feminist ideals.
>>I tend to believe that this attitude is far more prevalant than is claimed,
>>although I will make no attempt to prove it. I will also note that none
>>of the feminists who post here have really demonstrated that this is a
>>rare extremist attitude either. The question is still pretty open.
>
>Then you are either right, or you are paranoid.  

Actually, there is a usenet fortune which goes, "just because you are
paranoid does not mean that noone is following you", or something similar.
The point is well taken, rightness and paranoia are not dependant
qualities, they are completely independant. Your response is meaningless.

>                                                  Personally I believe
>it is the latter.  If the question is still pretty open, its only open
>in the minds of some people.  Its not open in mind.  

Fair enough, I will not accuse you of having an open mind then.

>                                                   And I can see why
>you don't want to make an attempt to prove it.  Might be pretty
>difficult to prove something like that (just as it would be to disprove
>it).

No feminist has been able to demonstrate -what- the situation is,
although they seem to claim that all feminists are great equalatarian
people, and that there are just a few feminist extremists making a lot
of noise that the media amplifies. This has never been demonstrated, 
nor has any evidence been presented. Yes, it is an open question, and
all unsupported claims seem to have about equal validity.
 
>>>I think the word "feminist" is starting to be overused and
>>>some of the uses are giving a very bad taint to the whole thing.
>>Since a feminist is anyone who calls themself a feminist, I do not
>>see that you have any more basis for claiming that their attitude
>>is not a basis for feminism than for claiming that your attitude is.
>
>By that argument neither do you.  Well that loop was certainly a
>productive line of logic to follow. :)

Since I have never, ever, claimed to be a feminist, I tend to agree.
But since we were not talking about me, your comment is a bit silly.
That you have nothing productive to add is one thing, but your attempts
to belittle and trivialize others conversations is a bit hard to accept.
 
>Seems to me that there is a possible argument that could be followed
>here.  Certainly we all seem to agree that there are some people who
>call themselves feminists who propose rediculous ideas and who seem
>to dislike men.  Great.
>
>Now, there are also people who call themselves feminists who want
>nothing more than equality and fairness.  And guess what!  Most of the
>feminists on this newsgroup seem to be of that group!  Wow!

Is this any surprise to you? Would it surprise you to know that the
lions clubs across the nations share similar beliefs and have similar
goals? Would it surprise you that all the hiking and outing clubs tend
to go backpacking a lot? Random chance cannot account for this? What
gives???? I suspect some paranormal influence. :^)
 
>Now why don't we stop talking so much about these others and start
>discussing the real issues of equality.  

Who are you do dictate what the issues are? You need to start you own
moderated group where you can censor things which you do not approve of.
Perhaps you can become a moderator of one of the .soc groups?

>                                     Seems to me that delving overmuch
>into the big bad feminists who hate men issue smacks of heavy paranoia.
>I mean you don't REALLY think these so-called big bad feminists who
>hate men are going to take over and subjugate all men tomorrow do you?
>The paranoia doesn't even make sense when you think about it.

(Re)-read _1984_, these things do not happen all at once. And I find your
verbal images amusing, "big bad feminists" is especially effective at
trivializing the issue. But luckily big bad Michael Stanley is here to
introduce everybody to reality.....  
 
>There are lots of productive issues that could be discussed.  

Then start you own thread. 

>                                                             Trying
>to pull down the entire feminist movement because men are scared of
>strong women isn't one of them. 

What are you trying to pull down? And I suggest that you simply do not
understand the issues under discussion. 

And where did this idiotic idea of "Trying to pull down the entire feminist 
movement" come from? Where do you -get- these ideas?
 
>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism