From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY !!!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:56:48 GMT

I note that Chaney posted twice to insure redundancy.  However, I will only 
comment on this post and not it's clone.

In article <1992Dec12.000056.24462@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.203051.13843@news.stolaf.edu> kamilewi@inga2.acc.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz), somewhere out near Jerry Brown Land, writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.175317.15587@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>In article <168BA7335.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU> VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec10.215827.17547@csus.edu>
>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>
>>>I know logic and reasoning was one gift you were probably not endowed
>>>with, but I'll labor your brain and waste bandwidth anyway on a little
>>>logic question: 
>>>
>>>1- Sexism means bashing someone because of their gender or attaching
>>>   stereotypes to a gender. 
>>>2- Militant feminists and even mainstream TV commercials and shows, do
>>>   this to the male gender every day. 
>>
>>And the female gender, if you'd happen to notice.
>
>Not on TV they don't. Making fun of women is something that is rare,
>if it occurs at all, on TV.

Ever hear of the Swedish Bikini Team, Steve?
Or did you think those ads (and the endless ones like it) were meant to 
bolster the image of women?

>>>3- Militant anti-male shirt buttons like "the more I know men the more
>>>   I like my cat" and other stuff, are common place. 
>>
>>As are shirts like "Fifteen reasons why a beer is better than a woman."
>
>I know. I've seen it. And it was the only time I saw anyone making a
>fuss at the guy. When a woman walks around with similar shirts, no one
>makes a fuss about it.

You seem to be implying that everyone but you condones male-bashing, 
but won't tolerate female-bashing, which I really don't believe.  
If you really believe it, you must feel very much alone in this world.

The real point is, gender-bashing occurs on both sides of the fence.  
The fact that you primarily see it on one side of the fence shows your bias.

>>>4- Sexism has been defined under discrimination. 
>>>5- Discrimination has been recognized as wrong.
>>>6- Male-bashing is sexism. 
>>>7- Male bashing is as wrong as woman-bashing. 
>>
>>And right now you're trying to stop male-bashing.  And some people are 
>>trying to stop women-bashing.  And you say that isn't fair?
>
>None of it's fair - the issue is that while the media and people in
>general make a big fuss when women are talked about, when women do it
>to men or it shows up on TV against men, no one complains. Then it
>becomes funny.

In America, there is a sense of fairplay and "turnabout is fairplay".  
When a group has been oppressed for a long time (women, blacks), we 
don't mind the novelty of them verbally fighting back at the their 
oppressors, but we do mind when their long-time oppressors continue their 
age-old habit of verbally harassing them.
[NOTE: I'm not saying the above is right, just that it appears to be so.
 The real point I am making lies below...]

Like the example you site above.

Or like when someone used the word "black" in a negative comment about 
you (and only once), nearly everyone jumped all over that person.  
But when you started calling that person (without any other shred of 
evidence) a member of the "KKK" (over and over and over again), 
most people looked the other way.  

So it seems to me that the majority's tolerance of insults from the 
oppressed is OK with you when it helps you (on the black/white issue), 
but it is NOT OK with you when it goes against you (on the female/
male issue).

Can you spell        h   y   p   o   c   r   i   t   e   ?


>>>Whoops. I almost forgot. I apologize. The reason why it is logically
>>>correct for women to bash men is because:
>>>
>>>8- This is the Year of the Woman. 
>>
>>Proof?  You always seem to have a problem with proof, Steve.
>
>PROOF?! I KNEW you lived near Jerry Brown Land. The proof that this is
>The Year of the Woman is easy to find - go read the newspapers, that
>this has been declared the Year of the Woman. 
>
>I can't believe you live that far away from Earth, that you haven't
>seen those 4 words splattered across newspapers and magazines all over
>the place.

Umm, Steve?  He was talking about your lame joke of pretending to 
*prove* that it is logical to bash men simply *because* this is the 
year of the woman.  He was NOT questioning whether you could prove it was 
the year of the woman -- I'm sure everyone else who read the post 
realized this except you.

Can you spell       s   t   u   p   i   d   ?

(Of course, to be fair to Steve, I guess he is used to having 
people question every single word that comes from his mouth, 
so maybe he was just on "auto-pilot" here and not truly stupid.)

>>>>Agreed, this is absurd.  But this is not a good reason to commend
>>>>environmentalists.
>>>
>>>Yes it is a good reason. Look at how conservatives are condemned for
>>>tiny, extreme events in their camp? Hell if they can be condemned for
>>>that, we can condemn your people for that stuff happening in Carmel.
>>
>>Proof?  You always seem to have a problem with proof, Steve.

Alex, didn't you know?  
Steve thinks that "two wrongs make a right" 
is the *ultimate* proof!  :-)

>It was on ABC radio news. I listen to it every day (mainly because
>they stick it on there before, during and after the Rush Limbaugh
>show and I listen to the radio whenever I'm not in class or I'm
>studying). I was also in several newspapers in Carmel - and it also
>was on the Rush Limbaugh Show. 

Sounds like a Rush *addict* (i.e., daily routine is structured around  
obtaining more Rush).  Good thing he doesn't watch Rush on tv 
in Philadelphia, because directly after it they show M*A*S*H !
(I think they call it the disease/cure hour!  :-)

>I have supplied you ample proof of all my claims. (In fact I've
>supplied everyone with ample proof of all my claims but that doesn't
>deter their ignorance, so what does it matter?) 

So...  you seem to be suggesting that *everyone* questions your claims, 
and that when you supply "proof", *everyone* still doesn't believe you.  
This, you explain, is because *everyone* else is ignorant.

And you don't suspect anything is amiss?

Well, since Steve has once again managed to self-destruct, I'm outta here! :-)



  [Sour grapes about the election and how the media "fixed" it, deleted.
   Personally, I thought the media helped Reagan win in the past, 
   by offering him that Teflon coat.  :-)]



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush