From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 21:24:29 GMT

In <Bm8RPB1w164w@cellar.org>, The Reverend P.C. writes:

>Robert Sheaffer writes:

>> A few brief quotes from Houston _Chronicle_ reporter Jacsun Shah, as
>> reported in the Jan., 1992 issue of "Liberty" magazine, p. 78:
>>
>>    "Yes, I am a man hater, yes, I am a feminist. and why not?
>>     Women are dying . They die every day, at the hands of men.
>>     Men ... beat them, rape them, dismember them. Hell yes, I
>>     hate men ... To all of you women out there, I say _hate_.
>>     You have every right to ... I knew the kindest thing I could
>>     do for the women of this world is to hate men with full force."
>>
>> (entered exactly as published in Liberty).

Rev. PC, note that the above statement is a reference to men *in general*
(assuming that the piece quoted above isn't just a "sound bite" and has been
taken in context), not just the men who abuse women...though to people who
think like you, "men" and "men who abuse women" are the same thing.  In that
it targets *all* men, most of whom are not guilty of this charge, I find it
a silly thing to say.  Outrageous?  Maybe.  Is it her right to say those
hateful things?  Absolutely.

>     You know, I don't see the same sort of outrage from Sheaffer over
>such issues as genital mutilation, gang rape, forced prostitution, the
>sale of 'wives' from overseas, or-- closer to the point-- that
>derange-o who shot up a bunch of coeds in Canada about two years ago
>because he was 'sick of all the feminists.'

Maybe that's because the mistreatment and abuse of women wasn't the issue,
Sherlock.

Do you really consider yourself an intelligent human being?  If you answer
"yes" to the question, then answer this:  Do you really think Mr. Sheaffer
advocates or condones the torture and mistreatment of women?  If he does, he
hasn't told us.  There is nothing to suggest that he thinks women are inferior.
He just mentions that there *are* cases where women are the perpetrators and
men *are* the victims occasionally, and you go ballistic and attempt to deny
it.  If you see his hatred for women, you are clearly reading between the
lines for words which aren't there.  Oh, yes, I forgot.  Codewords.  How silly
of me...

No one has denied that women are sometimes victimized by men.  It's just that
the non-PCers are not allowed to point out that (a) not *all* men do this, and
(b) men are sometimes victimized by women.

And your analogy to the man who shot coeds because he was "sick of all the
feminists" is a good one, and *not* for the reasons you intended!  You have
every right to feel outraged about that, but the article quoted about men is
essentially no different--launching an assault on members of a *group* because
you don't like the actions of individuals *within* the group.  The situations
are similar--people lashing out at the opposite sex because of some bad
(or perceived as bad) things they do.  If you think that women can "feel free"
to bash *all men* for things that a few men do, and you don't think a man can
bash feminism (and women in general) for a few things that feminists do, then
you, sir, are a first class hypocrite.  And no, before you put words into my
mouth, I'm *not* equating verbal abuse with assault with deadly weapons.  Nice
try, but I beat you to it.

>     It's okay for women to be beaten, tortured, degraded, sold like
>so much cattle, and even shot. But if one of them says that she hates
>men, well, that's Evil Incarnate.

No, but you are making three Politically Correct errors here.  First, you are
making the leap that if a few bad apples exist in a group, that it's okay to
denounce *all* members of the group.  If you substitute "men" with "women,"
"blacks," 'Jews" or "gays," and you suddenly disagree with it, then you must
either see your point as fallacious or hypocritical.  Secondly, you seem to
justify the same offenses when committed by women.  If "equality" were *truly*
the agenda of the Politically Correct (tm), then such actions would be either
*always* wrong or *never* wrong.  By using selective criteria for determining
the moral value of an action, you are being sexist *and* hypocritical. And
finally, your hypothesis ("It's okay for women...") is completely false, and
your assumption that "(i)t's okay" was made by *no one else but you* on this
topic.  So what does that make *you*?

>     Pretty funny criteria for moral outrage, eh?

I don't get outraged by people exercising their First Amendment right to say
that all men are evil.  I *do* get outraged when the same people try to deny
that right to those who disagree with them.

Pretty funny criteria for equality and consistency, eh?


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional study.  Use it.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.penpals