From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:38:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.023455.7584@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.011813.2326@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.160349.27570@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov6.213744.27000@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov6.053803.22887@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Nov6.000026.15585@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>>In article <1992Nov5.163209.3920@netcom.com> 
>>>>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>I think a valid point that is usually missing in most feminist postings
>>>>>>>is that most of the things men do most of the time are productive and/or
>>>>>>>constructive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Okay, I'm with ya so far...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Men and women both have good points and bad points, strengths and
>>>>>>>weaknesses. Reading posts here gives one the impression that the only
>>>>>>>things men do deserving consideration is to rape, sexually harrass, have
>>>>>>>sex with their children, etc... 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh please.  You're tempting me to pull your post that says, "Who here has
>>>>>>said this!  Give examples!  If things are as you paint, you should be
>>>>>>able to point just about *any* post to prove your point!" or something
>>>>>>like that.  (Then we could have 50,000 follow-ups where I go, "BUT IS
>>>>>>THIS REPRESENTATIVE!!".)  But I think it's not a good idea to get Rich
>>>>>>started.  :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, there are a few duplications, but there were 175 instances of the
>>>>>word rape in the last 10 days. Here is a list, I can compress the posts
>>>>>and mail them to you if you want.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is some duplication here, I need to write some filter scripts.
>>>>>But this is just the last 10 days.
>>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>[175 lines with the word rape gone]
>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>While I don't want to read all 175 myself, will you concede that *some* of
>>>>these could actually have contained the word rape
>>>
>>>Are you implying that my 'grep' is broken? Every line contained the word
>>>rape, and I will mail you the posts if you want to re-read all them all.
>>
>>No, you idiot.  I am not implying that your 'grep' is broken.
>>Please do mail me the posts, 
>
>Done.

I been sick three days.  Will analyze ASAP.

>>                             so I can re-read them all and do what you should
>>have done in the first place.  Evaluate their *CONTENT* based on what they said
>>rather than the inclusion of a value-neutral word.
>
>You idiot, -rape- is not a value-neutral word. And if you want to see a
>word debate on much less offensive words, check out the thread rini
>started in sci.skeptic.

Ok, it's not value-neutral [I got a little worked up there].
But, it is *not* a foregone conclusion that any discussion including the word
rape is anti-male.


>>>BTW, if you are too lazy to read them, you should not be posting about
>>>the content. 
>>
>>Got me there.  Send 'em to me.  Actually, I already read them, and I can
>>guarantee that *some* of them were pro-male, or at least neutral towards men
>>in general.
>
>Not material to the point that I am making.
> 
>>>>, but been pro-male?
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Btw, why did you break this part of the sentence off?  It's kind of an
>>important clause, and without it explains why you come to the stupid conclusion
>>that I would think grep is broken.
>
>No, you said "maybe some of these [lines] could actually contain the word rape"
>This clearly states that some do -not-. Go back and re-read. 

NO!!!
It clearly states that the *DO* contain the word rape, *BUT* are *NOT* anti-
male!!!
I've re-read it, now YOU go back and re-read the *WHOLE* sentence at once.


>>>Where did this come from? Rape is not a pro-male topic, ever.
>>
>>Not all men rape.
>
>So, rape still is not a pro-male topic.

Your claim was that it was anit-male, was it not?
And rape *could* be a pro-male topic, if the whole point of the discussion was,
say, men are always getting a bum rap as if they were all rapists when only a
few are.


>>The preceding sentence could be construed as pro-male.  It contains the word
>>rape.
>
>And in implies that the rest do. 

Huh?  Is that a typo?

And _it_ implies that the rest do.
where _it_ = "Not all men rape."

And would you care to explain how:
"And "Not all men rape." implies that the rest do makes any sense?!!!"
What rest?!!! {sarcasm on} All women rape?!!! {sarcasm off}
Your logic is even worse than usual on this one.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism