From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.190112.14711@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.191808.877@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

{some trimming was needed}

>>Perhaps that is because it is the -extremists- who we disagree with.
>>What a concept, arguing with those you disagree with. What'll they think
>>of next.
>
>I'm curious, Rich.  Who are the extreme feminists you are arguing with?
>Are they here on this forum?
>IMHO, most of the people on this forum seem quite moderate.

Maybe so, maybe not. From previous re-posts, it seems that Muffy's
idea of male reproductive responsibility amounts to sterilization or abstinance.
This seems rather extreme to me. I asked for clarification and whether
she thought that female reproductive responsibility would also be
sterilization or abstinance. She did not respond.

I think it possible that some posting here have views that are not
moderate. But I phrased part of the sentence badly. It should have
read more like "arguing with those extreme ideas you disagree with".
 
>>>    and then don't *do* anything to help, saying that you don't agree
>>>with the cause.  
>>
>>If you think one has to be an activist to help, then I think you are
>>mistaken. If I do what I think is right, and teach my children the
>>same concepts (should I ever have any), then I -am- doing something.
>>If everybody did no more than that, there would be no problem to begin
>>with.
>
>While I agree that you shouldn't be attacked for not being an activist, and
>just doing what you think is right is just fine, I think the latter part of
>your statement would only be true in an ideal world.  In short, it seems a
>little simplistic.

And it is also simplistic to think that the rest of the world/country/
whatever must change because one finds the present system inconvienient,
or wanting in some way. If you (the general you) feel obligated to force 
the change on others, then perhaps it will not be an improvment.
 
>>>               Call yourself a "moderate feminist" or something, or
>>>call yourself a woman hater, but *do* something to help balance the
>>>power, to shift things to equality, which you profess to espouse.
>>
>>State your disagreement with the feminist extremists, and you -will-
>>get labeled many things. It has happened to me. The power of convienient
>>labeling. If you are ideologically against Dworkin and the other
>>extremists, you get lumped in with those who are against equal 
>>opportunity. The two do not go hand in hand. You can have one without
>>the other.
>
>What all have you been labeled in this forum in this way?
>I don't recall anybody here lumping you in with people against equal
>opportunity.
>Certainly you can be against Dworkin and still for equal opportunity.  Hell,
>you can be against Dworkin and still feminist.

It has happened in direct response to this forum, but in the email. Both
times it was cleared up quickly. Reposting the mail is a rather bad thing
to do, I hope you agree, and I am still in correspondence. I mention this
because you seem to think things must be proved to you. 

There is also the nasty time I have had getting several misconceptions
cleared up in an ongoing thread which did -not- derive from what was posted.
In fact, it looks like most of the -debate- was over things I neither
said nor agreed with. The one remaining issue seems to be oven no more
than a disagreement over what happened in a previous thread.
 
>>>> As an example of faulty thinking
>>>> is the case of domestic violence.  To the feminist it is a simple case of
>>>> violence agianst women and children.
>>>
>>>  Sigh.  Here we go again, with the polemical foo... no.  To the
>>>feminist it is *not* a simple case of anything.  To *you* it's a simple
>>>case of slapping a disagreeable label on something good so you can
>>>smugly ignore it and preserve the status quo.
>>
>>Show me a side of this issue where this is not the order of the day.
>>Everybody group is guilty of label slapping. 
>
>This is true.

Can it be?? Agreement? Which just goes to show than many unlikely things
are possible. 
 
>>>> To think you can solve a part of a problem by attacking
>>>> only the half that suits your purpose is faulty thinking. 
>>>
>>>  But you continue to attack the radical part of feminism, which is much
>>>less than the half you claim that they attack.  As long as it suits your
>>>purpose, I know.
>>
>>The feminists extremists are (IMHO) deserving of attack. 
>
>IMHO, you'd be better off ignoring them and working with the moderates for what
>you think is right.

I can do what I think is right without any group ties. And I would be
uncomfortable having ties with a group with strong anti-male elements.

And it is an open question right now if the moderates will do more good
(good for whom?) than the extremists will do harm. 

There is always the possibility that you are right in this. But it is
a personal choice, and I think things will remain as they are for now.

>-- 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com