From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:03:06 GMT

daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:

>In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>> Yes I have, but I don't think that this battle ever came to the degree
>> of anti-male sentiment that I think it has become. I know I don't have a
>> problem with equal pay for equal work or women in corporate positions or
>> proper punishment for sexual violence or harassment, but incidents
>> against a woman that are deplorable have been used to advance an agenda
>> that is being forced down everyone's throats. The Tailhook incident is
>> now being used to say, "well you better let women into combat now to show
>> us that you are committed to punishing the guilty officers" which has
>> nothing to do with the punishment of the officers at all.

>So, why, specifically, should women not be allowed in combat?  

>Also, what is particularly wrong with militant tactics to achieve
>social goals.  You and I may not care for them, but change does
>not occur without a lot of stress on the system.  How does that
>stress get applied?   Of course, there is the assertion that perhaps
>there simply should be no change.

Does this mean you support Operation Rescue (at least in principle)?
Nice to have you aboard!

>> 
>> Another example is the Detroit Public School System had recently tried
>> to establish classes in which black boys could be taught by black male
>> teachers. The purpose of it was to bring the boys up in an environment
>> with strong male role models and decreasing the likelihood that the boys
>> would enter the world of crime. However it was a lot of feminist groups
>> that demanded that girls be allowed in the classroom, thereby
>> obfuscating the purpose of such classes in the first place. Of course
>> the Leadership raises hell whenever an all-women school is forced by
>> economics to admit men. In other words men should have women included
>> (except perhaps the bathroom), but women should have their own space to
>> themselves untarnished by testosterone. That's an example of the "war of
>> the sexes" engaged by the feminists as perceived by Rush and me.

>Yes, there is certainly a lot of nonsense involved in this sort of
>social engineering.

Oddly enough, Doug and I agree here.

>> 
>> But I don't think that's the major problem that Rush has. Recently he
>> has been describing on his show moves by the NYPSS (Public School
>> System) to have reading literature on ... I think it's "Heather's Two
>> Mommies." And I'm not referring to the sitcom "My Two Dads" either. At
>> the least I can see the intent is to encourage tolerance; at worst, the
>> book glorifies lesbianism. This is one thing that I remember Rush has a
>> definite problem regarding "lesbian rights."

>This whole problem of proper education is making the problems with
>public education real evident.  Nobody can agree on what the proper
>way of raising children is.  My opinion is that stuff like this
>is probably going to destroy public education.

Amazing.  WE agree twice.

>> I guess another example of the "militant feminist" movement on a more
>> personal scale deals with a good friend of mine who doesn't want any man
>> to open a door for her in courtesy (unless she needs to, but that's not
>> "courtesy" to her). She interprets a man holding the door open for her
>> as an affirmation that men are physically more powerful than women are
>> and thus have dominion over them. I have always been told, "you BETTER
>> hold doors open for older people and especially for women as common
>> courtesy, or you're a rude scum-bucket." I just can't win. [She does let
>> me hold the door open for her because we're good friends and she knows
>> I'm nice to just about everybody who's nice to me.]

>Just don't hold doors for anyone.  There are very few people in
>the world that are incapable of opening doors.  I HATE it when
>people hold doors for me, because it forces me to acknowledge
>their existence.
>

But he's still pretty weird.  Why would you hate to be forced to 
recognize someone else's existence?  Pretty anti-social if you ask me.
 
>doug

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu