From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: "Male-Bashing"
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:02:11 GMT

In article <Bx7w7H.GHs@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> rush2112@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Troy Hickman) writes:

)**When was the first time you heard it? And the folks I've most often heard 
)use it are the same people I would consider to be PC.

The first time?  Quite a while ago.  (On the order of years.  How many? 
Dunno, exactly.)  And most of the people I've heard using the term are using
it because they're pissed of by it!  (I think of the PC position as being
'apologist' on this issue - when I've heard the term used, it's by people who
want it to stop, not by people who want to 'apologize' for it.)

)> I do use the term (male bashing) occasionally, but I find most often that
)> just calling  something 'sexist' and/or 'male-bashing' doesn't seem to get
)> through too well.  A role-reversal or a parody seems to work much better most
)> of the time, IMO
)
)**How do you use a role reversal or parody when simply mentioning it as a 
)concept? There needs to be a word that we can use to imply sexism without 
)going into a detailed scenario. That is to say, imagine the awkwardness if you
)had to go into detail to get across the concept of "cow" or "broomstick."

I find that when one tries to explain *why* some particular remark is
bashing and/or sexist, one tends not to get the point across and runs into
the common (and frustrating) practice of rationalization and claims about
'that's not so bad' and 'that's not what I meant'.  Turning the roles around
tends to make the point more clearly IMO.  (At the very least, one runs into
less argument :-).)

)> Come to think of it, maybe that would help in this thread!
)> 
)> Suppose a woman was complaining about something someone she said that she
)> didn't like, and called it 'woman-bashing'.  What would you think of:
)> 
)> a)  A second woman jumping in, and berating the woman for not calling it
)> 'sexism'
)
)**Well, to begin with, I hope you're not implying that I was berating anyone
)for anything.

Actually, I did get the feeling you were berating people who did not choose
to use *exactly* your preferred language, which was what was I found
annoying about your post.

) In my initial post, I was not following up an article; I was
)merely stating my opinion, that being that I don't care for the term "male-
)bashing" and I believe that it is too gentle a term for a bit of ugliness we
)have always called "sexism" when it has been applied to women.

I don't think being 'too gentle' is much of a problem on the net :-).  I
also don't think that being strident about something that is annoying is
good in and of itself - actually, quite the opposite.  I think this applies
for both men and women.  I think that it is possible to object to sexist
or otherwise objectionable behavior in an assertive rather than an aggressive
and 'attacking' manner without loosing the forcefulness of the objection.
I think this is possible for both men and women.

I also thing you are wrong about the term 'woman bashing' not being used
on the net.  It's also fairly common (IMO).


Xref: sparky soc.men:18933 soc.women:19148 alt.dads-rights:2574 alt.abortion.inequity:4976