From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 31 Aug 92 02:51:17 GMT
Distribution: na

susan larsen writes
+ (Char Aznabul) writes:

+ Thank you for reinforcing
+ the comparison! [between the fanatical, semi-religous right and the 
fanatical, semi-religous feminists]

No problem. :)

+ 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 

Notice they've already pretty much dropped the 'familiy values'
theme? I wonder what's next???

+ 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.

Putting it thataway, I concur. It may have a tremendous impact on
the men's rights movement, as well. I'm just not sure whether they
believe that men are hulking beasts needing to be tamed & chained,
or that women are the root of all evil in the world, and if we
put them out of sight, men would behave in a virtuous manner.

Either way, it comes to: we know what's best for you. But then
again, that's the message I get from the democrats, too. :(

+ >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.  

But that's more than I can say of Bush, and possibly Clinton. M&D can't
change the world over night, but with time, patience, and perservance,
they may have a greater impact on the domestic scene than either of the
candidates.

Of course, this reflects my belief that one person can make a difference.
You're milage may vary.
 
+ >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."  

I've seen your other post regarding this. A freudian slip, perhaps?
It sure seems like it *is* this way sometimes. Ask anyone charged
with child abuse (or other heinous crime).

+ 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.

As long as some people hold that _false charges of rape_ will do men
some good (ala the Dean at Vassar), then do the activists *really* need 
to change the laws? 

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.women