From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:14:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <misdeva-101192161736@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.003315.23302@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich
>Payne) wrote:
>> 
>> None of it has been funny. But I would like to point out another
>> anti-symmetry in these feminist arguments. (did i invent a new word?)
>> In another thread, it was pointed out that women who are self confident
>> could care less what the models look like, while those who are insecure
>> may well feel threatened. This was taken as an attack the victim post
>> by at least one person, and I suspect more to follow. In another thread
>> it was directly asserted that any male who feels threatened by feminism
>> is obviously not getting enough sex, because it could only be the result
>> of sexual frustration. None of the other feminists commented on this.
>> 
>> The point is that when a woman has a problem with something (anything
>> at all it seems) she is perceived as having a valid complaint, regardless
>> what, if anything has happened. But when a man has a problem with 
>> anything regarding women, -he- becomes at fault, and a direct, unsupported
>> attack upon his sexuality is accepted. This from the same group which
>> just recently discussed gender expectations. 
>
>Sorry, Rich. I can only read so many posts, because I only have so much
>time.  I have time to comment on even fewer.   


Gee, -everyone- else on the net has unlimimted time.

>                                               You're not referring to the
>flame baiter that dropped in recently, are you?  

Well, Gorden Fitch has owned up to posting it, I had forgotted who. 
If you want to call his posts flame bait, fine with me. 

>                                                  If you are, then I guess
>I'm guilty.  If you're referring to another thread, then I must have missed
>it.  		

Then again, it looks more like you are just implying that I used known
bad data. Take your pick, who are you trying to insult, Gorden Fitch,
or myself. Either way...
 
>Care to repost, mystery person?

You mean, like with some of my unlimited time? BTW, the post had expired,
and I may or may not have it stored under some other keyword search. But
right now, I do not have time to look.
 
>> Some men -are- bad, and should not be out on the street. But not the vast
>> majority. Some women are in a similar condition, and should not be out
>> on the street either. But this judgement needs to be made on a person-to-
>> person basis, not on a sex-by-sex basis.
>> 
>> 
>> Rich
>> 
>> payner@netcom.com
>
>I wholeheartedly agree.

Does this mean we agree on something? Hows about we post to each other in
a less insulting fashion then? OK?  :^)
 
>       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
>      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
>  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
> /  /   /   | /  /  /
>/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
>                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor