From: spooge@sizone.UUCP (Cyberpolka On Da Jeep)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Men's Attitudes (Was: Take Back The Night)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 16:39:16 EST
Organization: Sonic Interzone, Atonal Hoodlum Subversion, TO Ont. 416-276-0552

renzland@gov.on.ca (Peter Renzland) writes:

> >> > I also think that spelling "women" as "womyn" is silly. Just my opinion.
> 
> >Women should look for more effective ways of empowerment than to change
2> >the spelling of a word to fonetik form. Its trivial, and with alot of
> >people viewing it as a "typical feminist tactic" and equating their
> >other efforts with this, it undermines them in general. 
> 
> It's their party.  They didn't invite you.  So why does this offend you?

Cause they should therefore stop complaining about me (men). They
complain about men's violence against women, which I agree exists, yet
they see any effort by men to come to terms with this with other men as
a shallow diversionary tactic, regardless of how sincerely it is
executed, and wether women are included in the process or not. If
they're not going to discuss things with men, and yet continue pointing
the finger at them, then I don't think anything is going to get done
quickly.

As for the fonetik spelling and people who think like Thee Genesis
P-Orrige about language - let them use it. I might end up not
understanding what they're writing about, but I wont use it.

> How is your attitute that says "They're being stupid and I know better
> what's good for them" different from the intolerance and arrogance of the

I didn't say that. I think that its stupid as a personal opinion. Alot
of other people think its stupid. (True? Do you think this is possible?)

It's a tradeoff. A nuclear activist may be right, but if they run around
screaming their head off and pointing guns at people's heads to try and
get something done (which ultimately results in nothing being done) then
alot fewer people are going to be sympathetic. Why? Cause *I* (and
here's the assumption from before) _and alot of other people think_ that
people running around with guns are not quite all there.

To tie this back to your statement - if I think that its stupid and
therefore it detracts from feminist efforts to educate, and if ALOT of
other people think so too (the assumption again), then wouldn't it be
prudent to possibly compromise a bit? Winning the "y" in womyn at the
cost of (what I think are) real solutions to (what I think are) more
important problems seems a bit silly. Then again, mebbe feminists think
that the "y" in womyn is more important than letting alot of people
really know what they think, or getting something done about the
violence.

You cant go around, unfortunately, and get alot of people to ignore the
fluff and see what you're really all about. Some will see the "y" in
womyn and turn it off. I dont, I read the rest of it, but I think its
stupid because they're locking out alot of other people who make
too-quick judgements. Possibly those people aren't worth winning anyway.
Some might say they are uneducated for the sole fact of not having an
open mind. But male violence knows little of the attackers educational
background, unless of course that includes education about male
violence.

> typical harrasser, abuser, or assaulter of women from whom so many of the
> boys posting in this thread have been trying so hard to distance themselves?

Are you saying men should embrace the "all men are rapists until proven
otherwise?"

> (*I* am not the problem.  I am a good male.  I'm your friend, I'm here to
> help you.  You *need* my help and support, etc., etc)

Need _MY_ nothing. They _DO NEED_ the understanding and education of the
men who are perpetrating this violence in the first place. Not talking
to them at all isn't going to help. Do you agree?

> About the spelling -- what precisely is wrong with the spelling of "womyn"?
> Why do you presume that this spelling is "silly" just because it is
> unfamiliar to you and your own short experience?  Perhaps this spelling is

I saw it long ago. Personal jabs detract from your content.

> a comparatively new fad, representing an attitude that considers women as
> chattel, as mere possesions of men.  An attitude that explains why women
> not accompanied by a man are considered "fair game" and why sexual assault

Fair game what? What game? Fair? Who said life is fair? (Women who are
WITH a man are more of a challenge. You have to convince the man too. :^)

> was considered not a crime against the woman but a violation of the
> property right of her man.  Perhaps the "womyn" spelling is more ancient
> and more valid than the "woman" spelling?

Perhaps it is, but I haven't even seen feminists bring this bit up, and
I'd trust them to validate their own usage of it as you have done.
(Seems validation is required, since you brought up the point about
ancient spellings. Perhaps we should just revert to olde english to make
things easier?)

New fads in spelling like "wanna" and "mebbe" as I use often enough are
not tied into what should be strong statements. Spelling WOMYN as such
to represent an otherwise strong empowerment seems lacking.

If anything, they should underline it as an attempt to be annoying to
such as me. (At that point I'd start laughing.) But... there's no humour
in serious social politics.

> In any case, why can you fellas not just relax and say: it's not my way,
> but it's their way and they feel good about it and it doesn't do any harm,
> I am happy to tolerate it?

Cause, "all men are rapists until proven otherwise". Blanket statements
such as this hurt, and it does hurt me personally. It seems that these
feminists dont want equality at all.

A strong statement, I'm sure to get flamed (but I paid my ticket at city
hall, so I wont!). Why do I say this?

Equality entails the ability to work together as well as being equal in
all respects. Men should be able to function effectively together, as
with women. For women the same. No, women shouldn't act exactly like men
and men exactly like women or as something stripped of all
characteristic differences between men and women. If there really is
going to be a concensus on male violence, then women should start trying
to work with the men. Someone in favour of quota systems might even say
that an equal number of men should be involved as women. Ejecting men
completely, and continuing to discuss something that women all agree is
a problem with MEN ("male violence" vs "violence"), seems to suggest
that the only solution acceptable by women is one on women' terms.

Yes, women's terms have all but been ignored in the past. So, we should
have nothing but women's terms? Alot of men in principle wouldn't agree
to this, regardless of the content. I dont think I would either if it
was slapped with a title of "Women's rules for men's conduct" or some
such thing. (Dont even bother mentioning "Men's rules for women's
conduct." I didnt sign that document, and in fact, what we're talking
about right now is how to ammend it.) Something that has been worked on
together in some sort of democratic fashion ("equality") would benefit
both sides and avoid future conflicts.

So when some men, ejected by other women's groups, form a group
(including some women) to have a "walk" and to visit highschools and
talk about male violence, they're not attacked on the content. Perhaps
the content of their talks are good, possibly even effective. Then why
are they being attacked with "the sole reason for their existence is to
divert funding from women's groups and shelters"? I really dont get it.
I guess women's groups cant tell us what they want from men because
they're too busy excluding men from the discourse.



I've gone off on a tangent enough to fill a boat, please try to reply to
my points, THEN go and attack me saying "your position is always men vs.
women, and us vs. them/they". I know, but that's what we're talking
about. I'm a man, not a woman, I cant attend these discussions or walks
that they have, thus it makes them "them" and us "us", and not
"everyone".

/kc

Ken Chasse - Sonic Interzone, Toronto Ont. * Inet: sizone!spooge@ee.ryerson.ca
-----------                                                        -----------
"It's stupid, it's idiotic, it's inane, it isn't art, it's dumb, it's a ripoff
of American pop culture, and we live in a sad society that tolrates it."
                                                      - NIMROD
Newsgroups: ont.general