[net.women] Response to "Re: Names shall never hurt me ..."

steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (09/10/83)

    In a recent follow up to my original article, Jim Balter decided to
bring up some issues that I am quite concerned with.  Despite many personal
attacks, following in the grand style of net.flame, I believe his response
deserves discussion.  So without further ado...

> I doubt that you actually believe that anyone's motive was to destroy or
> or in any other way maim the English language for the sole purpose of
> doing so, .....
>             ...  Such "needs" are reflections of very old social placements,
> which are undergoing attack.  Denying the reality of large social movements,
> attacking the massive number of people who consider themselves feminists as a
> group, as though they were a handful of crackpots, is asinine.

    No, I do not believe that anyone is attacking the English language
for the sole purpose of doing so.  I never said so.  What I was trying to
get across was this: Much of the Feminist Movement, in its effort to
attack *unfair* "very old socal placements", are attacking things which
are either not unfair, performed equally by both males and females, or
have little to do with male-female relations.

    As an example, I used the argument over the use of boy/girl vs
man/woman in the English language.  Easily instead I could have used
arguments over Toilet Seats, Leg Shaving, Pretty girls advertising
products (vs pretty boys), Person-holes, Male assholishness in romance
(vs Female bitchiness in romance), etc.

None of any of the above are taken seriously by anyone except radical
feminists (the self-same handful of crackpots), who continue to degrade
the movement by such petty griping.



    It is a shame that the party-line of feminism is now controlled by these
very same people, as it has given such a infamy to the movement that
anything associated with it is almost immediately rejected my main-stream
America (though copious lip-service in inevitably rendered).  The most
notorious of several examples of the debunked-because-of-feminist-association
is the ERA.

It is for this reason, I do not call myself a "Feminist".  Even though
my beliefs are probably quite similar to yours, I like to be listened
to when I talk.  I also do not like to be classified with the same women
who denounce males as the "leaders of the bourgeois fasciest military-
industrial complex" (I actually heard that at a rally).


Steven Maurer


p.s.    Some of my opinions on these dumb subjects.....

    1)  I leave the toilet seat down in my own house, but up in any public
	restroom (you can't trust the next guy not to just start spraying).

    2)  I love smooth legs.  I love girls who want to please me so much
	that they do so.  I, of course, reciprocate (beard / no beard ).

    3)  I quite enjoy looking at those sexy girls put up on billboards by
	the (California) Milk-Advisory board.  Though I am allergic to milk,
	I am as quite prepared as milk to Do A Body Good.            :->

    4)  Person-holes is too restricted.  How about Creature-holes??  :->

    5)  I am as confused by the decisions of males as I am of females.  I
	grok the phrase "(Men/Women)!! Can't live with 'em, can't live
	without 'em".