From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 14:49:22 GMT

In <1992Aug12.210134.19586@news.cs.indiana.edu>, Suh Jung Yul writes:

(lots of stuff deleted)

>  If "men only allowed" sign is an alarming one, then why don't
>  you fight "women only allowed" sign with equal vigor ?

You're right.  It's major hypocrisy, which is typical of feminism of the '90s.
I think that *private* organizations may have the right to exclude based on
gender (depending on the circumstances), but if so, then men *and* women must
possess that right equally, or else such exclusion should be totally abolished.

>  That will elminate another
>  sore excuse for it. Your lame argument that the women should have
>  unfair advantage in legal protection does not sit well with your
>  cary for equality. Maybe what  you all feminist really
>  want is some form of revenge
>  such as having unfair advantage for 2-3 millenia over men to punish men
>  for what their ancestor did for millenia.

Many feminists seem to want that.  A generation ago, "feminism" was about
dignity and respect for women--the right to participate in society on an equal
level.  Few people, save the neanderthals of the world, wish to deny that.  The
feminism of the '90s is a completely different agenda, and people who dislike
the agenda of the "new feminism" are tired of being told that they hate women.

>  When it comes to fairness, feminists are always in double-standard.

And that's what the new agenda is.  We must eliminate situations where men are
favored over women, and preserve those where women have the advantage.  Welcome
to today's feminism.  It's no wonder why the latest poll I saw found that 65%
of American *women* did not label themselves "feminists."  Under the current
practices of feminism, being "anti-feminist" is *not* the same as "anti-woman."
Maybe it WAS the same 20 years ago, but not today.  Feminism has turned from a
reasonable, humanist crusade to a fight to wield *more* power than men and to
reduce the role of men in society to that of beasts.

>  I have never seen any feminist who unequivocally reject "men only"
>  as well as "women only", which make me conclude that women are
                                                        ~~~~~
>  interrested in underhanded method to achieve not "equality"
>  but "superiority".

I think you should be saying "radical feminists," not "women."  But otherwise,
true again--at least among feminists in the last 10 years.  Female reporters
can go into men's locker rooms, but just try to put a male reporter in a
female locker room.  Try it, and tell me about "equality."

>    In short, I think they are cheap and cowardly.
>    (I have not had a reason to think otherwise yet.)

Well, that's a bit strong.  Most women are reasonable people, and while they
rightly seek a level playing field, many do reject the feminist notion that
society would be best served without men around, and that women should try to
seek superiority over men.  One of today's problems is that we try to label
everyone with an "-ist" title and label societies with "-ism" titles.  Perhaps
part of the reason we face today's problems is that there are too many "-isms"
(and false accusations of "-isms") floating around.  We *are* all human beings,
aren't we?  Why can't we just all be *humanists*?

Tim Irvin   j05660@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
**************************************************************************

"All sex is rape."--Kathleen MacKinnon, University of Michigan School of Law