From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:51:09 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov5.183415.17645@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <DJRSB16S@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct31.185635.16185@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <G7GSBAXP@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct24.225336.26629@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
>>>>posts an attack upon feminism and political correctness.  It was long and
>>>>detailed, and while I do not wish to repost it in its entirety, I would like to
>>>>respond to its general character.
>>>No, you respond to distinct points, points were not addressed in the post.
>>>I chased down the reference, and just about all of your post -not- a
>>>response to anything I had posted. To be kind, it is a work of fiction.
>>I disagree.
>That is why you posted, but you post was not in response to what I had said.
>I suspect that the reason why it was 100% quote and context free was just
>because of this. Context would have shown the gaping chasm between my
>post and your reposnse. I make no claims to know your motives, but I still
>have the post you responded to. Your claim that it was long was correct,
>and this is why I did not re-post it as I had intended. Most of it was
>quoted text however.

I must plead that I was just getting used to quotations.  You seemed to be
using this board as an anti-feminist, anti-liberal vehicle.  I still have
that impression, to an extent, therefore while I regret the ad-hominem parts,
I do not think I am so far out in my assessment of the article.

>>>>Too often liberals are attacked under the heading 'pc' as if an intolerance 
>>>>of bigotry were somehow a sign of hypocritical close-mindedness.  This 
>>>>insistence upon the ideological purity of one's opponents is a useful ploy, 
>>>>but one which should not be taken for more than what it is: rhetoric.  We 
>>>>live in a world in which we must try to be as open-minded as possible but 
>>>>cannot be expected to allow ourselves to be cowed into submission by appeals
>>>>to this virtue. The combat of injustice must begin with an understanding of
>>>>one's enemy, but cannot be left at that, for that would allow one's enemy 
>>>>(the cruel oppressor) liberties he/she should not be allowed.
>>>Does your definition of "open-minded"ness allow for things like actually
>>>reading others posts before attacking? Quoting is not only allowed here, it
>>>is actually -expected-. Your post is 100% quote and context free.
>>That is not my concept of open-mindedness.
>Let me verify this, you -seem- to be saying that your concept of open-mindedness
>does not allow for "reading others posts before attacking". This cannot be
>correct???

Incorrect.

Your previous statement could be correct in that my previous statement could
seem to be saying that my concept of open-mindedness does not allow for
"reading others posts before attacking."  Despite this possible
interpretation, the meaning I had intended was that my view of
open-mindedness did not consist of disregarding others posts before attacking
them.

>>>>Mr. Payne's attack seemed centered around the fact that political correctness
>>>>and feminism are about power.
>>>First, there was no attack. Second, how about posting the text that leads
>>>you to this conclusion?
>>>>                             Should justice be only a pleasant, admirable
>>>>theory wholly disconnected from practice?  Mr. Payne apparently believes it
>>>>should be -- liberalism and feminism should not be threatening he seems to say.
>>>Post what I did say, I insist.
>>>>Well, they'd be damned useless, if they didn't achieve this goal.  The only
>>>>difference between liberalism and feminism and other ideologies is their
>>>>inclusive and just precepts.
>>>Not all feminists want justice. And communism made the same claims. But
>>>communism in action (socialism) has not turned out to be just, nor a desirable
>>>system to live under.
>>>>I take exception with Mr. Payne's categorization of feminism as man-hating.
>>>And I take exception to this false claim. You have a severe perception
>>>problem dude.
>>>>When one points to the virtues of femininity and the vices of masculinity, 
>>>>the purpose of this exercise is not to imply that masculinity lacks virtue 
>>>>and feminity lacks vice.
>>>Why not look at the virtues and vices of both masculinity and feminity.
>>>Of what value is a comparison of the virtues of one group with the vices of
>>>another. Not that this is really valid, as this has turned out to be a
>>>comparison of stereotypes.
>>>>                    I dare any feminist to say that with a straight face in
>>>>normal conversation.  (I rescind that offer.  I know I have gotten into moods
>>>>when I have considered that theory myself, but it is normal to reach 
>>>>imbalanced states of mind given sufficient provocation.)
>>>I hope that after this post, your balance was restored.
>>I guess I deserved that.
>Hopefully we all feel better now. 

If you feel better, than we all do.

>>>>Nay, feminism is not man-hating.
>>>The claim has been made that -some- parts of feminism are man-hating. Not
>>>all of it. Can you disprove it? (and not with stereotypes)
>>One cannot prove contentions of this nature without resorting to silliness.
>Not so, there is nothing silly about the claim that some feminists are
>indeed man-haters. And there is nothing silly about these feminists.

I am a math major.  I find that one cannot "prove" verbal extensions without
silliness.  As to man-hating feminists I am sure there are some silly things
about them.

>And you prepared to claim that there are no (zero, none) feminsists who
>are man-haters?

I am prepared to claim just about anything.  Would I in this case make such
a claim?  Not in all due sobriety.

>>The point I was trying to make was that it need not be and often is not.  Let
>>us not continue to past one another.
>You lost me here.

That is perhaps because it is well within your philosophy, be it open-minded or
not to attack people's posts without reading them.  The reason I lost you was
that the ">"'s separate my preposition from it's initial antecedent.  "It"
was "feminism" and what it need not have been was man-hating.  I think we stand
in agreement on this issue at this point.  Or, am I mistaken?

>>>>                               Society lauds the masculine and condemns that
>>>>which is feminine. Society forces us to be lopsided, for while masculine
>>>>virtue and feminine vice are openly proclaimed, outside of bastions of 
>>>>feminism the contrapuntal feminine virtues and masculine vices are spoken 
>>>>in a hush and dismissed quickly afterwards.
>>>Have you been outside lately? Watched TV?
>>Don't watch TV except for the elections.  I have been outside though.  I have
>>seen a lot of sexual harrassment.
>Is this all you see? Do you see nothing which you do not interpret as
>sexual harrasment?

Is what all I see? (elections on tv or sexual harrassment everywhere?)
There are things which I do not interpret as sexual harrassment.

>>>>Mr. Payne's remarks are aimed at disempowering the feminists and liberals.
>>>Which remarks are these?
>>I forget myself; I'll try and track them down.
>Please do.

If you forward me the article, I will track down those remarks.

>>>>He has clearly delineated his position as anti-liberal/anti-feminism.  He
>>>>perhaps wishes to provoke a reaction from emotional women to bolster his male
>>>>ego.  This is an amusing sport.
>>>It would be less amusing than your idea of inventing straw-men arguments,
>>>claiming that they were presented by someone else (myslef in this case), then
>>>attacking them. I invite you to back up your claims of what I have said.
>>>And I would really like for you to keep me better informed as to what I
>>>actually mean. I seem to have thought that I meant something else.
>>Fair enough.
>>>>                             I know; I have done it myself.  I don't know
>>>>how hardened he is in his beliefs.  Perhaps he will realize the evil of his
>>>>ways, or perhaps he is a dyed-in-the-wool chauvinist.
>>>For starters, I believe anyone willing to make wide sweeping generalizations
>>>based upon a few posts is an idiot. Few are as two-dimensional as you seem
>>>to be.
>>That is a sweeping generalization in and of itself.  Even intelligent people
>>go off half-cocked some times.  Point taken, nonetheless.
>Granted, and I apologize. Perhaps we can move beyond this stage...

We have already, if I am not mistaken. (:

>>>>                                                     Either way, his
>>>>philosophy is bad news and smells like raw fish left out too long.
>>>No, it is your straw-man philosopny that you are arguing. But here I do agree 
>>>with you, it stinks.
>>>>                                                           As for Mr.
>>>>Payne himself, having no knowledge of him outside his post, I have no reason
>>>>to doubt he is a man of fine and outstanding character.
>>>No, not even that, you have completely misrepresented my post as well. But it
>>>is interesting that after mentioning the "evil of his[my] ways", calling me
>>>a "died-in-the-wool chauvinist", and saying that my philosophy stinks, you
>>>end with the above sentence. 
>>I did not call you a "died-in-the-wool chauvinist."  That last sentence was
>>included because I had a suspicion I may have misjudged you.
>OK, you said "or perhaps he is a dyed-in-the-wool chauvinist", but in light
>of the other derogatory claims and questions, it did not seem to be your
>intention to state that I was not a 'dyed-in-the-wool chauvinist'. Nor 
>are "perhaps"' such as these part of normal discussions.

I have not had a normal conversation for a great many years now.  I will
concede, however, that the tenor of my initial post was none to friendly.
That I believe is at the heart of this quibble, all silliness aside.

>>>>-dave
>>>Rich
>>>payner@netcom.com
>>Apologies are in order.  
>>-dave
>And a few of mine as well.

Not really necessarily, as you were much more responding in kind than anything
else.  Despite this superfluity accepted nevertheless.

>Rich
>payner@netcom.com

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism