dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/11/86)
In article <1394@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> "Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more >> certain they are their own." -- Aristotle > > And a little quote about how generally unfaithful women are! You seem to be trying to confirm this theory I have about feminists. Any line or quote that *can* be interpreted in a manner that is insulting to women *will* be interpreted in a manner that is insulting to women, even if it takes a lot of stretching, even if it takes a logical fallacy (as it did in the case of Fr. Woolley's joke), even if the author intended no insult and no normal reader would see the insult unless he/she was looking for one. In this way, feminists resemble another group of people who listen to popular music very carefully looking for lyrics that advocate Satanism or drug abuse. It works like a Rorschach test... what they find reveals more about them than about the music. The quote from Aristotle may be taken as referring to unfaithfulness in general, but no, it "obviously" had to be intended as a deliberate insult aimed at women. Though, sometimes, it will be my intention to insult and offend feminists, it will not be my intention to insult women. -- David Canzi "Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own." -- Aristotle
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (02/13/86)
In article <2088@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >You seem to be trying to confirm this theory I have about feminists. >Any line or quote that *can* be interpreted in a manner that is >insulting to women *will* be interpreted in a manner that is insulting >to women... For once I agree somewhat with the venerable Mr. C, but please! not *all* feminists. The issue of whether one uses an "all-inclusive rhetoric" for expressing one's ideas is independent of whether one is a feminist. However, I agree the all-inclusive trend is fairly pervasive in feminism. I once saw a feminist analysis of chess that concluded it was sexist, even though the queen is strong and the king weak, because the queen is sent out to do the dirty work and get killed, and the king is the most important piece! >"Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more >certain they are their own." -- Aristotle This is one reason why matrilineal societies (e.g. Hopi and other North American Indian societies) have such comparatively easy attitudes toward sex & marital fidelity -- it doesn't matter much *who* the father is, because the kid is going to stay in his/her mother's clan. The uncle- sister's-son relationship thus replaces the father-son relationship as the most important male-male bond, because that pair is the closest in relationship between two males in the same clan, and they know that without all sorts of requirements about marital fidelity. --Jamie. ...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "And then the lighting of the lamps"
stu16@whuxl.UUCP (Pippin) (02/13/86)
> > "Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more > certain they are their own." -- Aristotle A somewhat humorous note: (on the above quote) When my first child was born (a girl who looked just like my husband), the OB remarked, "We definitely know who the father is, it's the mother that's in question". We thought it hilarious. (Needless to say she was, and still is, "Daddy's Girl"). -- Pippin Stuart whuxl!stu16
wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) (02/15/86)
In article <2088@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >You seem to be trying to confirm this theory I have about feminists. >Any line or quote that *can* be interpreted in a manner that is >insulting to women *will* be interpreted in a manner that is insulting >to women, even if it takes a lot of stretching, even if it takes a >logical fallacy (as it did in the case of Fr. Woolley's joke), even if >the author intended no insult and no normal reader would see the insult >unless he/she was looking for one. I'd like to gently object to your use of "feminist". Sure I know what you mean, and if, in private mail, you want to compare lists, I'd bet we're both flamed at the same gals who spend half their day collecting grudges and the other half flaming about them. (And probably at the same antijokers in net.jokes, etc.) But some of us refuse to let "politically correct" "feminists" dictate our attitudes and behavior as firmly as we refuse to let men or any other group define our selfhood. I have never authorized Batwoman or any other "feminist" to put words in my mouth, and neither will I permit you to do so. I hope you don't feel flamed, because if I had a buck for every time I've forcibly restrained myself from flaming Batwoman, I could fly out to her site and verify my suspicion that she's really some idiot's idea of a practical joke on all of us. I mean, did Bird Dog leave the net or have a digital sex change? _Some_ feminists >resemble another group of people who listen to >popular music very carefully looking for lyrics that advocate Satanism >or drug abuse. It works like a Rorschach test... what they find >reveals more about them than about the music. But not all of us. But then, I don't go out of my way to listen to Satanist lyrics (Satanists define themselves by their opposition to xian propaganda, as the sort of "feminist" you just flamed define themselves in hostility to men) and I've never objected to "Puff the Magic Dragon", either. >The quote from Aristotle may be taken as referring to unfaithfulness >in general, but no, it "obviously" had to be intended as a deliberate >insult aimed at women. Though, sometimes, it will be my intention >to insult and offend feminists, it will not be my intention to insult >women. Couldn't you just insult the women who act like idiots, and let those of us who may or may not describe ourselves as feminists USE the word if we find it useful. In any case, I would assume that having an orgasm (at which point further male participation in reproduction becomes optional) is less vivid than lying on an uncomfortable table grunting out a baby. I know I'd remember more clearly getting seven pounds of baby out than squirting a few million sperms. STella Calvert Every man and every woman is a star. Guest on: ...!decvax!frog!wjr Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits> !SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachusetts Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (02/18/86)
In article <2088@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: > >You seem to be trying to confirm this theory I have about feminists. Of course, we all know that all feminists think exactly alike! Let's be a little more precise, OK? Remember the "men" - "some men" brouhaha? Jeff Winslow "Why do you hate me?" - Socrates
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/09/86)
In article <661@frog.UUCP> wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >In article <2088@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >>You seem to be trying to confirm this theory I have about feminists. >>Any line or quote that *can* be interpreted in a manner that is >>insulting to women *will* be interpreted in a manner that is insulting >>to women, even if it takes a lot of stretching, even if it takes a >>logical fallacy (as it did in the case of Fr. Woolley's joke), even if >>the author intended no insult and no normal reader would see the insult >>unless he/she was looking for one. > >I'd like to gently object to your use of "feminist". Sure I know what >you mean, and if, in private mail, you want to compare lists, I'd bet >we're both flamed at the same gals who spend half their day collecting >grudges and the other half flaming about them. > >But some of us refuse to let "politically correct" "feminists" dictate >our attitudes and behavior as firmly as we refuse to let men or any >other group define our selfhood. Unfortunately, it's the "politically correct feminists" who express themselves the most by appearing in mass media, giving lectures, and protesting, etc. and so I (and probably many others) came to think of them as *the* feminists. Sorry about lumping you in with them. I suspect, on the basis of some of your postings, that you don't share their fondness for solving problems with legislative solutions that involve dramatically increasing government power. >>The quote from Aristotle may be taken as referring to unfaithfulness >>in general, but no, it "obviously" had to be intended as a deliberate >>insult aimed at women. Though, sometimes, it will be my intention >>to insult and offend feminists, it will not be my intention to insult >>women. > >Couldn't you just insult the women who act like idiots, and let those >of us who may or may not describe ourselves as feminists USE the word if >we find it useful. Better still, I won't be insulting people. (Though I will occasionally offend.) That last sentence was a test to see if anybody would read into it an implication that feminists aren't women. Nobody took the bait. -- David Canzi The ultimate in "user-friendly" interior design is the padded cell.