From: bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis)
Subject: Re: Mr. Kaldis's "misogyny"
Organization: Bis Information Services
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:49:45 GMT

In article <Aug.30.22.57.09.1992.22622@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Every so often, the charge is put forth that I am, somehow, a
>"misogynist".  Such a charge is completely baseless, nevertheless,
>some see fit to advance it in an attempt to refute the timeless ideas
>and traditions upon which civilized western societies are based --
>never mind the fact that these ideas are irrefutable.  Shift the
>focus, then.  They suppose that if they can discredit the one who is
>standing up for and defending these ideas, they can somehow discredit
>the ideas themselves.  This is, essentially, nothing more than the old
>ad hominem argument.

There are idiots on all sides of every issue.  Just don't get so smug
as to presume that the fact that most of the people arguing against you
are morons indicates that you're right.

>But I would like, at this point, to comment on an example of true
>misogyny that is all too prevalent (and too overlooked) within our
>society -- one that is, moreover, applauded by those who would like to
>portray me as a misogynist.  I am talking, of course, about the
>aberrant practice of homosexuality.

A fantic:  Someone who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject. 

>What has brought this to mind is a recent posting by Clayton Cramer
>where he pointed out that the drag queens who march in so-called "gay
>pride" parades are basically an insulting parody of femininity.  Now I
>don't mean to suggest here that male homosexuality in all of its
>facets is an expression of misogyny, but it does indeed represent a
>profound failure on the part of some "men" to properly relate to
>women, particularly in the most intimate ways.  The homosexual is
>essentially a person who, for some reason, cannot come to terms with
>his own sexuality, and has turn to an aberrant behavior in an attempt
>to repudiate it.  Integral to such behavior, to either a greater or
>lesser extent, is misogyny.
>
>I would to quote here a passage from George Gilders _Men_and_Marriage_
>(Pelican Publishing Co., Gretna, LA, 1986):
>
>     Intercourse remorselessly sets the bounds of androgyny:

This doesn't make any sense.  This George Gilders guy strikes me as an
incoherent moron.

>What kind of man does the homosexual consider to be his ideal fantasy
>partner partner?  Many homosexuals have said that their ideal would be
>the epitome of masculinity -- a man who most exemplifies every
>masculine trait: the football player, the construction worker -- a man
>is most unquestionably and in every way a man's man (no pun intended,
>but I'll take credit for it anyway).  Why is this, and what does it
>mean?
>
>Before we answer this, we have to ask, will such a man be on the
>"giving" end, or on the "receiving" end?  Well, it doesn't matter.  It
>is to such men that homosexuals (in an earlier life) had found
>themselves losing out to (whether such a loss was actually acted out
>or was only perceived).  The fantasy of such a man on the giving end
>represents the enactment of the homosexual's perceived abasement at
>the hands of the one who brought it about so long ago, while having
>him on the receiving end, represents a symbolic final victory over the
>one who has caused him to this torturous life of torment.

You know, Ted, you sound just like a psychologist.  How do you KNOW
all this about how homosexuals think?  Is this ranting just your
speculation, or do you have something to base it on?  If you opinions
are as irrefutable as you always claim, it should be the latter.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh