X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:43:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Song Weaver & The Fems - A little respect please
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

This message is about six days old-- pardon the late response.

"Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020%RUTADMIN.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> writes:
>> I think that _any_ movement has its individuals who are judgemental
>> and non-thinking.  However, I am not going to criticize "the feminists"
>> for doing something that "some feminists" have done.
>
>  I only requested that you admonish "those feminists" that make broad
>  generalizations.

Why are you putting the burden of this on me?  I generally admonish
people who make broad generalizations in just about any circumstance,
but somehow it seems that you are trying to make it _my_ obligation to
do so.  I do this by choice, and by personal need.


>> I also think that sometimes men when hearing some feminist arguments
>> do not understand a separation between socialized behavior and identity.
>> Many feminists object to the way many men are TAUGHT to treat women and
>> will attack that, and thus attack "traditional" male behavior, which is
>> not about MALES but about socialization, but men take it personally.
>
>   If the feminists were more specific in their use of the language maybe
>   this would clear things up.  Yet, the feminists do use the term "men",
>   men this and men that and so on.  Maybe the feminists should stop
>   speaking in codes, or at least start to say what they mean, instead of
>   using the word "men" use the phrase "men's socialization process", or
>   something.

Can you be more specific?  Like provide an example of a phrase spoken
by a feminist that you don't like?  By the way, once again, when you
say "the feminists" you are implying that all feminists are a single
unit.  A more specific term might be "some" feminists.

>> There is also the factor of self-preservation.  Many women when taking
>> self-defense classes are taught to view any man as a rapist...
>
>  Using your logic above many Whites could justify their view of those who
>  live in the inner city.  Is this justified?  Or is it allowable to be
>  prejudiced based on the sex of the "others", but not their race?

This has nothing to do with my point.  The self defense classes do not
advocate the oppression of men, nor do they advocate hatred of them.
However, if you are in a position in which it is easy for someone to
use power against you then you should view the person as a potential
adversary and act accordingly.  If you are in a safe situation this
becomes irrelevant, but if I am alone, especially at night, and I am
approached by someone I do not know who looks like s/he has the
potential of being dangerous towards me, I will respond defensively
through possibly moving to the other side of the street, not getting
on an elevator alone with this person, etc.  This goes ESPECIALLY for
men, not because men are "bad" but because based on personal
experience, I have a lot more to risk in such situations from men than
from women.  This is social in nature.  I don't hold this AGAINST men,
but I am not going to be polite to some guy I don't know because I'm
trying to remain unprejudiced.

What do you mean by "many whites could justify their view of those who
live in the inner city..." btw?  It seems that you are suggesting that
Whites don't live in the inner city, but I am not sure what you meant.
Can you clarify?

--Julie