From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims) 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:35:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.021155.26304@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>In regard your comments, let me give an example from Real
>Life (tm).  I am doing work for a large corporation; where I
>work, there are seven first-level managers and one second-
>level manager.  Two of the seven first-level managers are
>women.  The other five are men, as is the second-level.
>
>Now, what does Robert want to do about this?  How is going
>to get rid of the women, which is what he seems to want to
>do?   If the corporation demotes or fires them because

>  If the corporation _doesn't_ get rid of them, then
>the status quo, which Robert dislikes, is being preserved.
>In fact, it'll probably get "worse." So I assume that from
>Robert's point of view something has to be done.
>
>of "reforms" Robert seems to be recommending.  Hence, some
>kind of fascism would seem to be required.  Now, I don't
>think Robert's a fascist, I just don't think he's thought
>out the requirements of his position.  

If you want to see the sorry state of logic surrounding contemporary
feminist issues, just look at some of Gordon's statements above.

If I *ever* posted anything about how 'women must not be allowed to
hold jobs as managers', somebody PLEASE find it. Don't worry, nobody
will, because I never did. I am PERFECTLY happy to let any woman hold
any job she wishes, so long as she is the best-qualified candidate for
that job. What I have objected to are lesser-qualified women being
given jobs they don't deserve. As I *did* earlier say (and got flamed
for a little, but I'll stand by it), I think every feminist should be free
to compete for any job she thinks she's man enough for. 

But Gordon thinks that Robert said that women shouldn't hold such jobs.
Where did he find that? In his own imagination, nowhere else. Gordon
is no doubt among those who have been brainwashed into seeing the
opponents of feminism as little cardboard reactionaries, hopelessly
glued to an outmoded chauvinism. That they might actually be classical
liberals apparently never occurs to him.

One of the most interesting discoveries I have made over the last year
is that absolutely NOBODY can argue against a critic of feminism
without *misrepresenting* the critic's arguments. If I can accomplish
nothing else except forcing people to reply to what critics actually
SAY, rather than some cartoon image of an M.C.P., then I will have
made a valuable contribution to our national sanity.


>  I thought I was just
>following Robert's text,

You *surely* thought wrong.

>garry:
>| BTW, did Robert propose a "return to the kitchen amendment" ? (hint: no).

Of course not. I am not suggesting compulsion on *anything*. There are,
however, some women who DO wish to spend at least part of their adult
life "in the kitchen," and IMHO it's time to stop the feminist war
against them. As Paglia notes, under feminism the virago (a useful word,
look it up) becomes the SOLE legitimate role model for a woman. This
is at least as absurd as the scheme that viewed 'wife and mother' as
the only role. Women must be allowed to choose the kind of role that
suits them, rather than being coerced into the tough-as-nails-career-track.
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"