From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:34:15 GMT

In article <DJRSB16S@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct31.185635.16185@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <G7GSBAXP@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct24.225336.26629@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
>>>posts an attack upon feminism and political correctness.  It was long and
>>>detailed, and while I do not wish to repost it in its entirety, I would like to
>>>respond to its general character.
>>
>>No, you respond to distinct points, points were not addressed in the post.
>>I chased down the reference, and just about all of your post -not- a
>>response to anything I had posted. To be kind, it is a work of fiction.
>
>I disagree.

That is why you posted, but you post was not in response to what I had said.
I suspect that the reason why it was 100% quote and context free was just
because of this. Context would have shown the gaping chasm between my
post and your reposnse. I make no claims to know your motives, but I still
have the post you responded to. Your claim that it was long was correct,
and this is why I did not re-post it as I had intended. Most of it was
quoted text however.
 
>>>Too often liberals are attacked under the heading 'pc' as if an intolerance 
>>>of bigotry were somehow a sign of hypocritical close-mindedness.  This 
>>>insistence upon the ideological purity of one's opponents is a useful ploy, 
>>>but one which should not be taken for more than what it is: rhetoric.  We 
>>>live in a world in which we must try to be as open-minded as possible but 
>>>cannot be expected to allow ourselves to be cowed into submission by appeals
>>>to this virtue. The combat of injustice must begin with an understanding of
>>>one's enemy, but cannot be left at that, for that would allow one's enemy 
>>>(the cruel oppressor) liberties he/she should not be allowed.
>>
>>Does your definition of "open-minded"ness allow for things like actually
>>reading others posts before attacking? Quoting is not only allowed here, it
>>is actually -expected-. Your post is 100% quote and context free.
>
>That is not my concept of open-mindedness.

Let me verify this, you -seem- to be saying that your concept of open-mindedness
does not allow for "reading others posts before attacking". This cannot be
correct???
 
>>>Mr. Payne's attack seemed centered around the fact that political correctness
>>>and feminism are about power.  
>>
>>First, there was no attack. Second, how about posting the text that leads
>>you to this conclusion?
>>
>>>                             Should justice be only a pleasant, admirable
>>>theory wholly disconnected from practice?  Mr. Payne apparently believes it
>>>should be -- liberalism and feminism should not be threatening he seems to say.
>>
>>Post what I did say, I insist.
>>
>>>Well, they'd be damned useless, if they didn't achieve this goal.  The only
>>>difference between liberalism and feminism and other ideologies is their
>>>inclusive and just precepts.
>>
>>Not all feminists want justice. And communism made the same claims. But
>>communism in action (socialism) has not turned out to be just, nor a desirable
>>system to live under. 
>> 
>>>I take exception with Mr. Payne's categorization of feminism as man-hating.
>>
>>And I take exception to this false claim. You have a severe perception
>>problem dude.
>>
>>>When one points to the virtues of femininity and the vices of masculinity, 
>>>the purpose of this exercise is not to imply that masculinity lacks virtue 
>>>and feminity lacks vice.  
>>
>>Why not look at the virtues and vices of both masculinity and feminity.
>>Of what value is a comparison of the virtues of one group with the vices of
>>another. Not that this is really valid, as this has turned out to be a
>>comparison of stereotypes.
>>
>>>                    I dare any feminist to say that with a straight face in
>>>normal conversation.  (I rescind that offer.  I know I have gotten into moods
>>>when I have considered that theory myself, but it is normal to reach 
>>>imbalanced states of mind given sufficient provocation.)
>>
>>I hope that after this post, your balance was restored.
>
>I guess I deserved that.

Hopefully we all feel better now. 
 
>>>Nay, feminism is not man-hating.  
>>
>>The claim has been made that -some- parts of feminism are man-hating. Not
>>all of it. Can you disprove it? (and not with stereotypes)
>
>One cannot prove contentions of this nature without resorting to silliness.

Not so, there is nothing silly about the claim that some feminists are
indeed man-haters. And there is nothing silly about these feminists.

And you prepared to claim that there are no (zero, none) feminsists who
are man-haters?

>The point I was trying to make was that it need not be and often is not.  Let
>us not continue to past one another.

You lost me here.
 
>>>                               Society lauds the masculine and condemns that
>>>which is feminine. Society forces us to be lopsided, for while masculine
>>>virtue and feminine vice are openly proclaimed, outside of bastions of 
>>>feminism the contrapuntal feminine virtues and masculine vices are spoken 
>>>in a hush and dismissed quickly afterwards.
>>
>>Have you been outside lately? Watched TV?
>
>Don't watch TV except for the elections.  I have been outside though.  I have
>seen a lot of sexual harrassment.

Is this all you see? Do you see nothing which you do not interpret as
sexual harrasment? 
  
>>>Mr. Payne's remarks are aimed at disempowering the feminists and liberals.
>>
>>Which remarks are these?
>
>I forget myself; I'll try and track them down.

Please do. 
 
>>>He has clearly delineated his position as anti-liberal/anti-feminism.  He
>>>perhaps wishes to provoke a reaction from emotional women to bolster his male
>>>ego.  This is an amusing sport.  
>>
>>It would be less amusing than your idea of inventing straw-men arguments,
>>claiming that they were presented by someone else (myslef in this case), then
>>attacking them. I invite you to back up your claims of what I have said.
>>And I would really like for you to keep me better informed as to what I
>>actually mean. I seem to have thought that I meant something else.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>>>                             I know; I have done it myself.  I don't know
>>>how hardened he is in his beliefs.  Perhaps he will realize the evil of his
>>>ways, or perhaps he is a dyed-in-the-wool chauvinist.  
>>
>>For starters, I believe anyone willing to make wide sweeping generalizations
>>based upon a few posts is an idiot. Few are as two-dimensional as you seem
>>to be.
>
>That is a sweeping generalization in and of itself.  Even intelligent people
>go off half-cocked some times.  Point taken, nonetheless.

Granted, and I apologize. Perhaps we can move beyond this stage...
 
>>>                                                             Either way, his
>>>philosophy is bad news and smells like raw fish left out too long.  
>>
>>No, it is your straw-man philosopny that you are arguing. But here I do agree 
>>with you, it stinks.
>>
>>>                                                                   As for Mr.
>>>Payne himself, having no knowledge of him outside his post, I have no reason
>>>to doubt he is a man of fine and outstanding character.
>>
>>No, not even that, you have completely misrepresented my post as well. But it
>>is interesting that after mentioning the "evil of his[my] ways", calling me
>>a "died-in-the-wool chauvinist", and saying that my philosophy stinks, you
>>end with the above sentence. 
>
>I did not call you a "died-in-the-wool chauvinist."  That last sentence was
>included because I had a suspicion I may have misjudged you.

OK, you said "or perhaps he is a dyed-in-the-wool chauvinist", but in light
of the other derogatory claims and questions, it did not seem to be your
intention to state that I was not a 'dyed-in-the-wool chauvinist'. Nor 
are "perhaps"' such as these part of normal discussions.
 
>>>-dave
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>Apologies are in order.  
>-dave

And a few of mine as well.


Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.feminism