From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminis
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<715956423@lear.cs.duke.edu> <ZEN.92Sep8100130@death.corp.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:31:09 GMT

<In article <ZEN.92Sep8100130@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
<   In article <715956423@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
<   > In article <1992Sep8.160434.718@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> 
<   > moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
<   > >as a rule, expecting to demolish an entire philosophy by showing that
<   > >some few of it's most outspoken advocates sometimes make ill-thought
<   > >statements is not practical. Otherwise we wouldn't have Dan Quayle
<   > >in any public position? 
<   > Dan Quayle is a joke, and quite a few republicans know that.
<   > In feminism, we are talking about non-fiction books which are
<   > taken seriously, are sold in millions of copies and bash men.

<     More people take dan quayle seriously than ms. dworkin and other
<   radical feminists, 

	A nice example of a sweeping generalization, thank you.
	
	Now then; VP Quayle has been so savagely lampooned by
	the press as to be the most "unserious" political figure
	in the US, if not the most "unserious" PUBLIC figure.

	Dworkin, on the other hand, is treated with kid gloves,
	has gotten her agenda made into law and is currently
	on a tour during which she will speak before thousands
	of people.

<but of course you don't care -- anytime that someone
<   says something that you perceive as a weapon to be used against
<   feminists, you don't hesitate to use it, 

	Thank you so much for telling the world what Gazit
	cares about. Please tell us how you do it?

	Ouija board?

<but protest loudly when anyone
<   points to the problems that the current power structure poses for women
<   all over the world.  You have no clue, no concept of what feminism is
<   about -- the quotes and comments you claim are widely accepted among
<   feminists are a bad joke to most feminists, just as you are.

	Huh. While Qualye is ritually denounced daily, I am unaware
	of ANY public rift between A. Dworkin and, oh, NOW.

<     Generally, popularity does not equate to being taken seriously among
<   thinking people.  

	Now, THAT is a howler of a statement. Is the inverse "true"
	as well?

<Calling quayle the definitive spokesperson for the
<   republicans is much more correct than saying that dworkin is for
<   feminism.  

	If Dworkin isn't a "feminist", why do so many "feminists"
	pay money to hear her speak?

<Similarily, quoting a writer of popular fiction as having an
<   ideology that all feminists espouse is not particularily meaningful in
<   most cases.

	If it's OK to cite "Snow White" as an example of "how all
	men think", why is it wrong to cite French's fiction as
	an example of "how *ONE* feminist thinks", please?

<     I've never met *anyone* say that they believed what dworkin
<does, 

	Ah, and you've met the entire membership of "Women Against
	Pornography", have you? 

	I doubt it.

<but look at the subject lines in this newsgroup -- 

	Yes, please do. Recall that the original thread was started
	when a member of NOW posted that "sweeping generalizations
	about men....are more or less true".

	Recall that I posted ONE LINE from Dworkin of less than
	5 words in refutation of that claim....and who went
	ballistic?

<dworkin is used widely as
<   a big stick to crush feminist ideals and to ridicule women.  

	Dworkin is one of the most famous and effective "feminists"
	in North America today. 

	Deal with it, quit trying to evade it.

<I think it
<   was gordon who said that even if she didn't exist, men would invent her --
<   it's true -- she's proven to be a very good weapon to use against
<   feminists.  If anyone on the net feels like defending dworkin or other
<   radical feminists, feel free to leap forth now.  Note that I'm not
<   saying that they (dworkin et al) don't have a right to say and believe
<   anything that they want, but to think that that is the goal of feminism
,   is not only a gross misunderstanding of the subject, but sheer stupidity
<   and culpability.

	This is a wonderful example of a strawman...er..strawPERSON
	argument. My citation of Dworkin was intended to refute
	a "feminist" who claimed that stereotypes about men
	are "more or less true". Note how the defenders of
	stereotypes about men have changed the subject, in order
	to make their argument easier......


	My, it's interesting just how citing one line of Dworkin
	gets "feminists" all excited. 

	Imagine what would happen if a whole paragraph were
	posted.....
Newsgroups: alt.feminism