From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:03:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Sep28110417@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> In article <6403@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

>>If you want examples of men's groups being seen as threatening to women's
>>groups, get a subscription to Playboy.  (Check out the copies for the blind
>>at the local library if the pictures offend you).

> That is very funny, I must say.  I have been looking at the pictures in
> Playboy since I was about 8-9 years old; my stepfather subscribed and my
> mother would let us look at the cartoons.  Are you, by any chance,
> exhibiting some assumptions about feminists here?  I don't find the
> pictures particularly enthralling or exciting, but I have never been
> offended by them.

Funny?  Muffy, it's a riot!  Some feminists are down right rabid about
nudity and sexuality.  The "Men Against Rape and Pornography" and several
other self-proclaimed feminist groups recently protested at a news stand
right here in Pittsburgh because Playboy had recruited University of
Pittsburgh women to pose in the nude for the "Big East" conference feature.
They were hoping to stop the sale of the magazine, I suppose!  This was
recently docmented in an issue of the PITT NEWS.

Now, I could understand why they might do this.  The feature was entitled the
"GIRLS of the Big East".  It really should be "WOMEN".  Everyone featured is
of at least voting age.  However, the feminist groups were upset that these
women, who chose of their on free will to pose and were paid for their time,
were being exploited as sex objects.  They were attempting to educate men on
the street as to how their purchase of Playboy contributes to the rape of
women.

So it's not unreasonable to assume that some feminists may not approve of
Playboy's pictures.  Perhaps you do not feel that these people are true
feminists.  That's an argument that only "feminists" can debate.  If they
claim to be feminists, I take them at their word.  In any case, the
anti-nudity/pro-sexuality split in feminism has been documented elsewhere.
N.O.W. wrestles with this issue all the time.

The feminists who were quoted in the PITT NEWS do have computer accounts on
this system.  However, the accounts do not appear to have been used for some
time.  It would be interesting to see them post their feminist views to this
newsgroup or to soc.feminism.  I wish I could somehow reach them and invite
them to do so.  I think it would be interesting to meet some in-the-street
active-in-the-movement feminists who make the local headlines!

>>Their are some groups, but they are struggling.  I assumed that you were
>>interested in helping to lend them some financial support.  The groups
>>really need it.  If you truly believe in equality, you'll want to help with
>>your very own pocketbook.

> I'm already contributing to a lot of groups which *are* interested in
> equality.  You make a lot of assumptions, don't you?  

Yea, I assumed that your previous articles were more than let's slam the men
because they aren't so visable.  I thought you were honestly interested in
helping them get started.  If this was an incorrect assumption on my part,
I do appologize!

>I might be
> interested in contributing to a group that was truly interested in
> equality, or I might think that the groups I am already supporting are
> more important.  Here's a question: Who do *you* contribute to, and why?

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU.  I fight censorship.  People like
George Bush and you, Muffy, have convinced me that it's important to support
the ACLU.  I never got involved in this stuff before.  Now I'm a radical!
(I truly believe that if one's own speech is to be free, one must tolerate
the free speech of others.  This means that if I want to have a parade for
my cause, I must tolerate a Neo-Nazi application for a permit in a Jewish
neighborhood.  This makes the ACLU unpopular, but they are honest to their
cause).

I also support the Salvation Army and not the Red Cross.  I feel that the
Salvation Army does more with the money that I give them.  I don't give
money to the United Way, since I learned how much their executives make.
I give money directly to the organizations that I care about.

I give money to groups that actively work to inform young men about draft
registration and the military.  I feel that young men are not being given
enough information by the government to understand exactly what commitment
they are making when they register/enlist in the military.  I'm sure this
doesn't make me a good friend of George Bush or Dan Quayle.

And I also support the folk arts in Pittsburgh.  I give substantial amounts
of my time and money to supporting radical folk artists that definately
don't make George Bush and Dan Quayle happy!  So as you can see, I'm a no
good card carrying liberal! ;-)  Oh, and by the way, I vote too!

Since we're asking, Muffy: Who do *you* contribute to and why?

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women