From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Some examples (Was Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?))
Date: 5 Sep 92 23:14:28 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep5.195532.2721@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>character.  Of the two examples you give, one is essentially
>a one-liner and pretty much ad-hominem -- it doesn't allow of
>any reasonable answer -- 

Let's take a look in this example:

#############################################################################

 > In article <49810@ricerca.UUCP> jan@oas.olivetti.com writes:
 > >The "custody for women" thing is new, and IMO will be short-lived.  
 > 
 > What makes you think so?
 > 
 > Will you be willing to bet 25% of *your* income on that?
 > 

#############################################################################

I pointed out that Jan's claim has no base in reality.  (Tell me
Gordon, do *you* think that "The `custody for women' thing will be 
short-lived"?  The easy way to point it out was to ask if she is 
willing to put her money where her mouth is.

A reasonable answer was "yes, if it will not happen till year
XXXX I'll donate X% of my income to organization Y."

############################################################################

 > In article <1991Oct30.153557.580@meteor.wisc.edu> hechtel@meteor.wisc.edu (Leslie Hechtel) writes:
 > >Oh?  I don't know about the affirmative action issue,
 > >     I've never heard of feminist support for priority custody,
 > >     I've never heard of 'choice for women, not for men', unless you
 > >are referring to the fact that pro-choice feminists tend to support the
 > >woman's ultimate decision-making power as to what will happen to her
 > >body,
 > >     and if you'd pick up a copy or two of Ms. magazine (which IMHO is a
 > 
 > Tell me just one thing Ms. "I've never heard about it" Leslie,
 > what's your opinion about such paragraphs:
 > 
 > "In her ground-breaking new book, "The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of
 > Terrorism," Robin Morgan advances an analysis of terrorism in which the soldier
 > (the State's hero) and the terrorist (the Revolution's hero) are mirror-image
 > expressions of male nature, not human nature.  A feminist writer who was once
 > involved in small, pre-Weathermen, "armed propaganda" groups, Morgan opens a
 > window of thought and action that lets us move out of a male-centered politics
 > of Thanatos - the romance of death - into a feminist politics of Eros, a loving
 > life force. 
 > 
 > The following excerpt, drawn from Chapters 1,5 and 6 of "The Demon Lover,"
 > shows us how maleness itself becomes the weapon of destruction, and how
 > women who seek political change are coerced, deceived, and seduced into
 > fighting for manhood under the illusion that they are ending their own
 > oppression and creating a humane world."
 >                                   ---  Ms. magazine, March 1989
 > 
 > (Aside from the fact that you've never heard any such
 > opinion in Ms. Magazine...)
 > 
 > >Leslie M. Hechtel
 > 
 > Hillel                                               gazit@cs.duke.edu
 > 
 > "Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have
 > been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men."
 >                                  -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)

#########################################################################

>and the other, if I read it correctly,
>is a complete digression with no function but to prove that
>the other person doesn't pick the same things out of _Ms_ 
>you do.

Leslie gave some claims about that main-stream feminism, as presented
in Ms. magazine, is not as hostile to men as I claim and hinted that
I just did not read the magazine and my claim had no base.  I gave
her a good example of what's really written there.

>Can you explain the examples otherwise?  Both postings seem
>like personal attacks to me, 

It put her claim in a bad light, and you and the moderators 
see that as a personal attack.

Tell me Gordon, is there any way, for *me*, to tell you "what you
said is not true" without you shouting "it is a personal attack"?
(This is not a rhetoric question.)

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                          gazit@cs.duke.edu

IT WAS NOT JUST SOME "FLAME", LOOKING FOR AN EASY TARGET.
It had _legitimate_ points to make.  ---   Diane Holt
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:844 soc.men:16132 soc.women:16320