From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Female "Wiring"
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:17:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.140801.348@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>Notice how Loren now feels compelled to reply to nearly everything I post,
>and, it seems, practically *only* to that. Gosh, and I thought it was only
>Brian Siano who had this obsession!

	Gosh, I have company! :-)

... Read a posting here by Petrich, 
>and the first line is almost sure to be:

$ In article <1992Oct9.231415.10416@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <1992Oct10.014855.22011@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
$ 
$ 	First TV comedies, now the National Enquirer, now Sister
$ Souljah.
$ 
$ 	Where will it all end?

>Apparently discussions of the popular culture are somehow Unworthy of the
>learned Petrich.

	No, not at all. I'm not opposed to discussing popular culture.
I'm just opposed to being too credulous about it. One reason I have
difficulty taking Sister Souljah on white people seriously is that she
regards white people as morally defective. She claims to have met some
"nice" ones, but never any "good" ones. What would be a good white
person to her I could never quite figure out.

	I could respect her saying that she doesn't expect white
people to fully understand what black people have to go through, but
this about white people suggests the sort of stereotyping usually
associated with David Duke and the KKK.

	In that same _Playboy_ interview, she also claimed that Jesus
Christ was black, which, though not impossible, is rather unlikely. He
probably looked like the people one can find today in the Middle East
-- white, but rather un-Nordic.

	_The National Enquirer_? I would not defend that paper's
"journalism", though it would be good for popular stereotypes.

	Likewise, I would view TV comedies as a good source for
popular stereotypes, as opposed to realistic sociology.

$ 	Perhaps with Scepticus Maximus becoming Scepticus Minimus.

>Planting *this* idea is obviously Loren's primary goal. Gosh, my
>influence and power must be *far* more than I thought, if I seem *this*
>threatening to him.

	No, I was suggesting that you are doing this to yourself.

$ 	I'm well aware of her views on white feminists, as on white
$ people in general.
$ 
$ 	I don't find her terribly different from David Duke.

>Nor do I, but that's not the point of the post, silly. Of course, she's
>a racist. What's so funny is how when white feminists meet with a
>well-known black radical woman, and the main thing on their mind is
>apparently getting into bed with HER!!!

	I take that about as seriously as I do her "no good whites"
position.

	Of course, a white woman might have made a pass at her once,
but one can never know for sure.

	One might want to ask about this on soc.motss.

>"Sistah's" exact words are:
>
>     A lot of the white feminists I've met have been lesbians who
>     seem more interested in getting you to adopt their sexual lifestyle
>     than in getting you to empower yourself as a woman, so that you
>     could empower your family. That's problematic.
>
>     Q: Isn't that only one small part of the feminist movement?
>
>     A: I said that is what I have experienced.

	While it is true that some feminists may seem overly
preoccupied with lesbianism, I've never encountered _that_ accusation
before, so if it is really as typical as SS claims, others would have
charged lesbian feminists with trying to seduce them.