From: slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:08:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

(Char Aznabul) writes:
>susan larsen writes
>+(Bronis Vidugiris) writes: 
>+ >
>+ >Also, there is absolutely *nothing* like the organized politcial and  
>   directed
>+ >male bashing that we see in politics today from the homosexual male front
>+ >(or the non-homosexual male front, for that matter). There aren't any male  
>+ >McKinnon's or Dworkins (IMO).                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>+  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>+ I wouldn't be too sure about that!  On the purely censorious front, we have 
>+ Donald Wildmon, Jerry Falwell, and a host of other religious-types more 
>+ than willing to do whatever it takes to not only censor, but punish folks
>+ involved in pornography.
>
>Sorry, I canna resist:
>
>I wouldn't be too sure about that!  On the purely censorious front, we have 
>Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, and a host of other feminist-types more 
>than willing to do whatever it takes to not only censor, but punish folks
>involved in pornography.

The point I was trying to make is male counterparts to McKinnon and
Dworkin *do* in fact exist, in the religious right.  Thank you for reinforcing
the comparison!
 
>+ As for gender-bashing, I would equate the legal attempts of a McKinnon or 
>+ Dworkin with that of a Bush or Quayle, those two great Republican leaders
>+ who would do all they could to force women back to hearth and home. In 
>+ fact
>+ Mckinnon and Dworkin are less scary gender-bashers because they don't have 
>+ a say on who the next Supreme Court appointee will be.
>
>That may be so, but...SC appointees are approved by the Senate Judiciary
>committee, with such leading lights as Bidden and Kennedy. So I suspect,
>since abortion will be used as a litmus test, that further Bush appointees
>will be middle-of-the-road. Any Clinton appointees will most assuredly be
>pro-abortion.
>
>These guys are politicians - they will do whatever it takes to keep 
>their polls high and get reelected.

If Bush and Quayle can manage to get re-elected on their hate-filled 
platform, I have no doubt that the president will continue to appoint 
anti-abortion justices.  After the drubbing the Judiciary Committee 
took on the Thomas appointment, *they* will be the ones watching their 
backs.  Remember, one of the few 1988 campaign promises that Bush has 
been able to keep was the appointment of these judges.  A 1992 win 
will further convince the Republicans that divisive politicking 
attacking women, homosexuals, and the Congress is indeed a winning 
strategy.  This thinking will carry through to 1996, and possibly 
beyond.  Yes, I do view this ticket as a real and powerful threat 
to women.

>M&D, on the other hand, have no such considerations. They'll keep 
>hammering away with their legislative efforts in the hopes that sooner
>or latter one of their bills will pass Constitutional review. They
>*believe* in what they're doing.

Perhaps, but they have no real power base outside of the force of their 
convictions.  

>And you know what? I betcha they'll eventually succeed. Maybe in another
>10 years, but succeed they will.

I would be willing to take up that action.  Twenty bucks, maybe?  You see, 
I do not think that a conservative Supreme Court would dare to chop at 
such a fundamental constitutional principle as "guilty until proven 
innocent."  In fact, there was a recent case in Michigan in which a 
marginally retarded young woman pressed a rape charge and during the 
trial, all evidence of her "incompetence" was suppressed, which led 
to an acquittal.  The community at large has expressed outrage at this, 
maintaining the belief that had the jury been allowed to hear evidence 
regarding the young woman's mental retardation, the man would have been
convicted.  

I do not see any time, in the near or far future, in which the prosecution
of felonious rape will feature different rules of evidence from any 
other felony.  To do otherwise, IMO, would require nothing short of a 
constitutional amendment and the support for such simply does not exist.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu