From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:26:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug27.141026.1018@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>In article <l-cn-sd.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>Here is some information that I posted to a local net. There is a
>>3.?K limit to the size of what can be posted, so it is a short clip.
>>If I can find the article, I will post more.
>>
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[lots of loony stuff from Dworkin deleted]
>>
>>Sexual-harrasment law thus discards the idea of equal protection: given
>>the same behavior, a man will find it much harder to prove a claim than
>>a woman. The "hostile environment" approach also does away with the idea of
>>intent. It does not matter what the defendant intended to do, or even
>>what he actually did. The crucial test is the "environment" that his
>>actions created - in other words, the subjective reaction of the
>>complainant.
>>
>	I'm afraid you're making a bit of a logical leap here.  

I'm afraid it is you who are confused. How you missed the header
and the attribute to the article from which the text was taken
is beyond me. But you clearly have. These are not -my- words.
They did contain some information about Dworkin which I had promised
to post, and that is the whole story, no need to wait for Paul Harvey.

>                                                            Laws against
>sexual harrassment do not necessarily encode Dworkin's extremist views.  

Laws drafted by Dworkin must neccessarily encode Dworkin`s views, how
can it be otherwise?

>                                                                       Do
>you have any actual evidence that these laws are interpreted in the way you
>claim?  Otherwise this is simply an opinion.  Personally, I'd like to hear
>from someone with some legal knowledge on this issue.

No, this is your mistake in asserting that these were my words. But we have
covered that already, have we not?

>	In this particular posting, you have leapt from Dworkin's declarations
>to a specific case which asserts only that men generally are more empowered
>than women in most part of our society.  You may find this an unacceptable idea,
>but I'm afraid there's plenty of evidence to support it.  This doesn't offer
>any real support for Dworkin's extremist views, however.
>
>>***********
>>
>>This is scary stuff, it is real, and it is happening now.
>>
>	Well, I'll agree with the first two, but I'm a little vague on the last.*What* is "happening now"?  You can hardly claim that Dworkin's extremist ideas
>have been enacted into law; consensual sex still isn't considered rape as far as
>I know.
>>I will post more in the future.
>>
>	If you insist.  

I shoulda edited that out, it was in the origonal post, and does not
reflect my current intentions.

>                   Personally, I'm getting a little tired of what looks
>like an attempt to discredit the entire feminist movement by repeatedly
>focusing on it's most radical members.  It's not unlike discussing the
>Republican party only in terms of David Duke or Patrick Buchanan.

Any damage done by radical feminists cannot be ignored or dissmissed
by saying, "others who claim to be feminists would not do this". Unless
you are prepared to prove that they are not feminists, and not a part
of the feminist movement, they must be given due consideration.

>>Rich
>The_Doge

Rich again
Newsgroups: alt.feminism