tookman@endot.UUCP (kathy) (09/25/86)
I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to be a feminist without protesting everything. I mean in the 70's everyone was more radical and it gave non-feminists a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). Some feminists just haven't learned that screaming your views at some people don't make them listen--if anything they block their ears completely. kathy
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (09/29/86)
In article <153@endot.UUCP> tookman@endot.UUCP (kathy) writes: >I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to >be a feminist without protesting everything. And what is it that you intend to accept rather than protest? Do you propose to accept everything, rather than be accused of protesting everything? >I mean in the 70's everyone was more radical and it gave >non-feminists a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). AWWWW, I feel SO sorry for them. We put a bad taste in their mouths, when what they deserved was to be run out of town, sued to the gills, thrown in jail, had their self-serving laws declared unconstitutional, changed their laws behind their backs... and (to make things even) ... had childeren of their sex killed at birth, had all their property rights removed, denied them access to an education, humiliated them regularly and pubically, had degrading pornographic films taken of them and used against them socially, professionally and psychologically, and used them as domestic slaves for four thousand years. I'm SO afraid of putting a bad taste in their mouths, oh, yes. >Some feminists just haven't learned that screaming your views at >some people don't make them listen--if anything they block their >ears completely. And you think that whispering your views will make them listen? I've got news for you. If you whisper, your voice will be ignored, just like I almost ignored your timid little mealy-mouthed posting. >kathy
gadfly@ihlpa.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/30/86)
-- >> I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to >> be a feminist without protesting everything. Possible, but what with the way modern capitalism and patriarchy are intertwined, it's difficult. >> I mean in the 70's everyone was more radical and it gave non-feminists >> a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). Some feminists just >> haven't learned that screaming your views at some people don't make >> them listen--if anything they block their ears completely. Well, they can take their bad taste out of their mouths and stick it in their ears. Whoever came up with the notion of feminism as some sort of bel canto operatic style? All the feminists I know are soft-spoken, patient and articulate. But then, this is true of most oppressed idealists. *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 30 Sep 86 [9 Vendemiaire An CXCV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-8042 ** ** ** ** ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly *** *** <== NOTE NEW ADDRESS!
mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (10/01/86)
> In article <153@endot.UUCP> tookman@endot.UUCP (kathy) writes: >> I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to >> be a feminist without protesting everything. > > And what is it that you intend to accept rather than protest? > Do you propose to accept everything, rather than be accused > of protesting everything? Lay off the logical imbalances, Cheryl. No one said anything about accepting everything, only about not protesting everything. It has been my experience that you can't fight ALL the fights, no matter how good they are. You have to choose your battles, usually by personal and geographical proximity. A friend of mine's mother works with the Alaska state government as a lawyer, and sometimes gets called a "girl", "lady", "Miss", etc. While she is strongly and vocally feminist, she lets these things go by (unless they were intentionally meant demeaningly). She has more important issues to worry about than correcting someone's grammer to meet current social norms. This does not imply a "mealy-mouthed" nature within her, rather it implies a desire to maximize her efforts, so that her presence might do the most good for all concerned. >> I mean in the 70's everyone was more radical and it gave >> non-feminists a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). > > AWWWW, I feel SO sorry for them. We put a bad taste in their mouths, > when what they deserved was to be run out of town, sued to the > gills, thrown in jail, had their self-serving laws declared > unconstitutional, changed their laws behind their backs... I see. What was that you said about digging two graves when you go looking for revenge (in another posting)? Seriously, while screaming until you are blue in the face about social issues may get something done, it is only because you have managed to get the attention of those people with whom we have invested our social power...namely Congress. Tact has its place too, and leaving a 'bad taste' in someone's mouth is a consequence you have to consider when you stand up for what you think is right (even though it may not change what you do). > and (to make things even) ... had childeren of their sex killed at > birth, had all their property rights removed, denied them access > to an education, humiliated them regularly and pubically, had ^^^^^^^^^ should I assume you meant "publically"? I can't tell. > degrading pornographic films taken of them and used against them > socially, professionally and psychologically, and used them as > domestic slaves for four thousand years. I'm sure we can all see how far taking Cheryl's proposed line of action would lead us toward real social egalitarianism. [What if, say, 4000 years ago, all society was ruled by women, and men were thought to be inferior? One day, the men got fed up and decided that turnabout was fair play. So they began subjugating the women, re-inventing all their common wisdom and fables to support the view of the superior man, all the while thinking it was great fun and that they would eventually, after a generation or two, set everything right and be equal with the women as they knew they should be. Its just that, well, someone forgot... :-) :-)] > I'm SO afraid of putting a bad taste in their mouths, oh, yes. > > >Some feminists just haven't learned that screaming your views at > >some people don't make them listen--if anything they block their > >ears completely. > > And you think that whispering your views will make them listen? > I've got news for you. If you whisper, your voice will be ignored, > just like I almost ignored your timid little mealy-mouthed posting. > > >kathy I would think that by now we would have all seen enough quiet whispering (which is not, in all fairness, what Kathy was suggesting) and its quiet lack of results; enough rancorous, ill-reasoned screaming and its empty feeling of accomplishment; and enough stiff-lipped silence and its hope that things will somehow get better. Aren't we ready and able to speak in thinking, rational tones and really achieve a greater measure of social equality and responsibility for all of us? I thought we were, but given Cheryl's posting above, maybe I was wrong. -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0
jmr@motown.UUCP (John M. Ritter) (10/01/86)
> > In article <153@endot.UUCP> tookman@endot.UUCP (kathy) writes: > >I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to > >be a feminist without protesting everything. > > In article <1116@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> (cheryl) writes: > And what is it that you intend to accept rather than protest? > Do you propose to accept everything, rather than be accused > of protesting everything? > These are hardly opposites... > >Some feminists just haven't learned that screaming your views at > >some people don't make them listen--if anything they block their > >ears completely. > > And you think that whispering your views will make them listen? > I've got news for you. If you whisper, your voice will be ignored, > just like I almost ignored your timid little mealy-mouthed posting. > cheryl > >kathy Thank you Kathy, you've just proved your point with some unsoliceted help: Shouting aloud just makes one look silly, kinda' like all those TV preachers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I enjoy working with human beings, and John M. Ritter have stimulating relationships with them." Allied-Signal Inc. - HAL 9000 Corporate Tax Department {bellcore,harpo,ihnp4,infopro,princeton,sys1}!motown!jmr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joe@watvlsi.UUCP (Joe Morrison) (10/01/86)
kathy: >>I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to >>be a feminist without protesting everything. cheryl: >And what is it that you intend to accept rather than protest? >Do you propose to accept everything, rather than be accused >of protesting everything? joe: Not protesting everything doesn't necessarily mean accepting everything. A number of my friends are feminists and I share their views. I don't "protest everything" but I try and do things that remind my male friends of my views. I'm not dogmatic about the issue and so my friends tend to respect my views. In that small way I am doing my part for the feminist movement, without officially "protesting". kathy: >>I mean in the 70's everyone was more radical and it gave >>non-feminists a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). cheryl: >AWWWW, I feel SO sorry for them. We put a bad taste in their mouths, >when what they deserved was to be run out of town, sued to the >gills, thrown in jail, had their self-serving laws declared ... etc... >I'm SO afraid of putting a bad taste in their mouths, oh, yes. joe: Is this supposed to be a rebuttal? Kathy might have worded her sentence a bit better, but I agree with it! My male friends tend to chuckle when they hear the word "feminist" and make the usual jokes, because many feminists *are* man-haters and go out of their way to alienate men. To help the feminist cause, men's perceptions have to change. Running the men out of town, etc. is not going to accomplish this! kathy: >>Some feminists just haven't learned that screaming your views at >>some people don't make them listen--if anything they block their >>ears completely. cheryl: >And you think that whispering your views will make them listen? >I've got news for you. If you whisper, your voice will be ignored, >just like I almost ignored your timid little mealy-mouthed posting. joe: Kathy is right! And stop making the world black and white! People don't have to choose between screaming or whispering, there are lots of alternative, MORE USEFUL positions to take. Also, there is no reason to call a posting "mealy-mouthed" - we're all paying for this net and no one has the right to intimidate netters who have something to say. Cheryl, I hope you don't interpret this posting as a flame. I've been enjoying this newgroup for a while, and I really hate it when I sense anger or hatred. That's mostly why I wrote this. I'm looking forward to comments about my posting but I hope this doesn't turn into a name-calling newsgroup. On a new topic, (and if anyone follows this up, I think you should delete soc.singles from the newsgroups line) one of my interests is in genderless writing. This is extremely difficult to do in English. There is an excellent article about genderless writing by Douglas Hofstatder in his book "Metamagical Themas", pp.136-167. Has anyone read this? Anyone have any ideas or tips about genderless writing? -- Joe Morrison VLSI Group University of Waterloo {decvax,allegra,ihnp4}!watmath!watvlsi!joe -- "The first fifteen million years -- they were the worst..."
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (10/01/86)
In article <1116@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >In article <153@endot.UUCP> tookman@endot.UUCP (kathy) writes: >>I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to >>be a feminist without protesting everything. > >And what is it that you intend to accept rather than protest? >Do you propose to accept everything, rather than be accused >of protesting everything? > Hear,hear, Cheryl. That is the dangerous trend that is threatening the FEW concessions we did make. I agree with you ,Cheryl, that we can't fall into the old complaicantcy of "Oh,we won here and there and we mustn't rock the boat" mode. But there are a few areas that feminist should be praising more -- for instance women who choose to be just mothers. Non-working mothers shouldn't be looked down on like some do. They are not traitors, they are exercising their rights to work at what they feel they must -- BUT only when they have chosen freely. The inalienable right to choose to work and have or not have children is our right also. Which is why we must be ever vigilant about feminist issues. We've only won a few battles, Kathy, and the protest and changes must continue. Quiet complaicency won't cut it. >>I mean in the 70's everyone was more radical and it gave >>non-feminists a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). > >AWWWW, I feel SO sorry for them. We put a bad taste in their mouths, >when what they deserved was to be run out of town, sued to the >gills, thrown in jail, had their self-serving laws declared >unconstitutional, changed their laws behind their backs... and >(to make things even) ... had childeren of their sex killed at >birth, had all their property rights removed, denied them access >to an education, humiliated them regularly and pubically, had >degrading pornographic films taken of them and used against them >socially, professionally and psychologically, and used them as >domestic slaves for four thousand years. > >I'm SO afraid of putting a bad taste in their mouths, oh, yes. > You tell 'em, Cheryl! > > >>Some feminists just haven't learned that screaming your views at >>some people don't make them listen--if anything they block their >>ears completely. > >And you think that whispering your views will make them listen? >I've got news for you. If you whisper, your voice will be ignored, >just like I almost ignored your timid little mealy-mouthed posting. > >>kathy In these days of rampant conservity, screaming may not be most effective but neither will wispering. But a loud,consistent, ever vigilant, intelligent protest MUST be continued. Otherwise, all the loses of power and the reversal of concession hard one will be reversed before anyone knows there's a fight, Kathy. Sometimes, screaming is the only way to first get the attention that something is wrong. The issue then becomes,when do you scream. P.M.Pincha-Wagener
bodhi@hrcca.UUCP (Bodhisattva) (10/03/86)
> >it gave non-feminists a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). > > AWWWW, I feel SO sorry for them. We put a bad taste in their mouths, > when what they deserved was to be run out of town, sued to the > gills, thrown in jail, had their self-serving laws declared > unconstitutional, changed their laws behind their backs... and > (to make things even) ... had childeren of their sex killed at > birth, had all their property rights removed, denied them access > to an education, humiliated them regularly and pubically, had > degrading pornographic films taken of them and used against them > socially, professionally and psychologically, and used them as > domestic slaves for four thousand years. > > I've got news for you. If you whisper, your voice will be ignored, > just like I almost ignored your timid little mealy-mouthed posting. Ah, Cheryl is her own best parody! -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bodhisattva UUCP: ihnp4!hrcca!bodhi koho chojo manako ni unsho o mi, koto tohen wadei gassui from the top of the solitary peak, i gaze at the clouds; close by the old ferry landing i am splashed xxxx xxxx. by Cheryl. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/03/86)
> -- > >> I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to > >> be a feminist without protesting everything. > > Possible, but what with the way modern capitalism and patriarchy > are intertwined, it's difficult. > As opposed to how patriarchy isn't intertwined with practically every other economic/cultural/religious system? Get serious. Clayton E. Cramer
figmo@lll-crg.ARpA (Lynn Gold) (10/06/86)
In article <1944@ihlpa.UUCP> gadfly@ihlpa.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >>> I mean in the 70's everyone was more radical and it gave non-feminists >>> a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). Some feminists just >>> haven't learned that screaming your views at some people don't make >>> them listen--if anything they block their ears completely. > >Well, they can take their bad taste out of their mouths and stick >it in their ears. Whoever came up with the notion of feminism as >some sort of bel canto operatic style? All the feminists I know >are soft-spoken, patient and articulate. But then, this is true of >most oppressed idealists. My first introduction to feminism wasn't soft-spoken or patient. She was an English teacher I had in high school with whom I had a rather strong personality clash. This teacher felt that her daughter would suffer no ill effects from being shuttled into a day-care center asap after birth; I told her she didn't know what went on there, and that you're taking a chance when you trust strangers with your young child. Unlike her, *I* spent my early childhood in a day-care center (they were called "nursery schools" back then) because my mother had to work in order to put my father through school, and I felt I missed out on having a normal early childhood. She felt that abortion was just-plain-okey-dokey for all purposes; I felt that while I couldn't see myself voting against abortion rights, it was irresponsible to use it on the same level as condoms or IUDs. She made students whose mothers were housewives feel inferior (we had to say "domestic engineer" in order to avoid a scathing attack on our mothers' values), and failed one girl who didn't happen to watch the Bobby Riggs/Billy Jean King tennis match. We were forced to listen to "women's music" and told us that Heinlein was sexist for writing what he did in the '50's while Shakespeare wasn't anti-semitic for writing "comedies" which didn't have happy endings for the Jews. She treated anyone who didn't espouse and embrace her viewpoints like mud, and her way of presenting feminism was enough to almost make me want to become Phyllis Schafly II. Yes, there ARE women out there who fit the stereotyped feminist model, just as there are cool, calm, and soft-spoken ones. Those of us in the latter group need to enlighten women who have been scared off by the more militant model, because it's frightened women reacting to MILITANT (read: stereotypical) feminists who side up with Phyllis Schafly even though they'd probably embrace the ERA and concepts such as "equal work, equal pay" if they were presented in a more gentle fashion. --Lynn -- UUCP: ...lll-crg!figmo ARPA: Lynn%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM *********************************************************************** * Any resemblance between my postings and any person, living or dead, * * is purely coincidental. Besides, I'm only a guest user here... * ***********************************************************************
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/07/86)
In article <1944@ihlpa.UUCP> gadfly@ihlpa.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >>> I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to >>> be a feminist without protesting everything. >Possible, but what with the way modern capitalism and patriarchy >are intertwined, it's difficult. Depending on one's point of view, it is possible to look at the progress made thus far. On the other hand, there are many facets of "feminism" (anti-sexism) that aren't getting the attention they should. The roles of MEN could be more closely examined. It is more than a little counterproductive to teach that women can be aggressive, assertive, and in control, and at the same time literally brainwash a man into thinking that, unless he is the "master", if he's somehow effeminate, if he isn't "in control" of every situation, he is somehow less of a man. The end result is both sexes fighting for control, and neither sex willing to give control. >>> I mean in the 70's everyone was more radical and it gave non-feminists >>> a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). Some feminists just >>> haven't learned that screaming your views at some people don't make >>> them listen--if anything they block their ears completely. When one listens to the entire feminist view, and realizes all of the alteratives available to both men and women, what was "screaming" becomes "sweet music". Men are under less pressure to "prove their masculinity" in the various "Macho" ways. A man who wants to be a hair dresser, fashion designer, secretary, nurse, or even a homemaker doesn't have to feel that he is a "failure" or a "faggot" because he didn't become an engineer, lawyer, doctor, or at least truck driver instead. For women to acheive better standing, men have to feel comfortable with female superiors in the work-place, in school, in politics, and even at home. The indoctrination that men experience while growing up make this very difficult, but not impossible. >Well, they can take their bad taste out of their mouths and stick >it in their ears. That's a nice "soft-spoken" statement :-). Actually, if they (people offended by feminist views) would take the cotton out of their ears, and put it in their mouths, they might learn something. They might even support the cause. >Whoever came up with the notion of feminism as >some sort of bel canto operatic style? All the feminists I know >are soft-spoken, patient and articulate. I grew up in an earlier time, when "soft spoken" didn't get very far. In spite of this, after attending seminars by Warren Farrel, and a number of "true feminists", and learning how many areas could be changed, the whole package made a lot of sense. One version of the "true feminist" view puts it quite nicely. Essentially, men and women have been "brainwashed" by generations of teaching and tradition into playing certain "roles". The "knight in shining armor" rescues the "damsel in distress". The "knight" slays dragons, evil knights, and overcomes obsticles to prove his love, masculinity, and worthiness, while the "damsel" watches quietly in admiration. The "knight" protects the damsel from everything. There may have been a time when such "roles" were useful, but now the "Knight" is "protecting" the "damsel" from opportunities, growth, and access to power of her own. In some cases, the "damsel" might be stronger emotionally, intellectually, politically, or even physically, but for her to rescue the "knight", the "knight" must want, as well as need, to be rescued. Many men can't even accept assistance, let alone rescue. When one examines all of the various "roles" that men and women are conditioned to play, it can quickly be seen that "feminism" can be a good thing for everyone. Look at the "slogans" that are still being taught today. "A man's GOT TO fight his own battles" "A man's GOT TO stand up for himself" "A man's GOT TO show strength" "A man's GOT TO take control of the situation" "Sometimes you HAVE TO fight to be a man" "Real Men don't cry" "Real men don't show fear" And other such barf! Try plugging the word woman in these phrases. >All the feminists I know >are soft-spoken, patient and articulate. I was fortunate enough to meet a feminist (woman) who had the patience and wisdom to encourage "switching roles" in our relationships. She'd take control of the situation, right down to driving the car, and paying for dinner and drinks. She would encourage me to share my feelings, pain, and joy, even cry in front of her. She would frequently remind me of my own powerlessness in the situation. At first, I was embarrassed, sometimes even afraid to trust her so much. Later, I learned to accept and even enjoy letting her be in control. Since then, I have had female superiors, female peers, and female subordinates. The subordinates have gotten respect for their abilities, and were given better opportunities when their abilities warrented it. Female peers have been promoted faster than I, because their abilities warrented it. Female superiors have not been threatening either. My wife drives when we go out, I take care of the kids when she is at work, and she has nearly complete control of the family finances. Again, this is because her abilities warrant it. Without that first exposure to reversed roles, such trust and dependence on others would have been unlikely. Because of this acceptance and trust, my wife, the women I have professional relationships with, and myself, have gained more than I, or they, could possibly achieved without each other's support. >ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly *** *** <== NOTE NEW ADDRESS!
li@uw-vlsi.ARPA (Phyllis Li) (10/08/86)
In article <1944@ihlpa.UUCP> gadfly@ihlpa.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >> I mean in the 70's everyone was more radical and it gave non-feminists >> a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). Some feminists just >> haven't learned that screaming your views at some people don't make >> them listen--if anything they block their ears completely. > >Well, they can take their bad taste out of their mouths and stick >it in their ears. Whoever came up with the notion of feminism as >some sort of bel canto operatic style? All the feminists I know >are soft-spoken, patient and articulate. But then, this is true of >most oppressed idealists. Guess you are just lucky. Like Lynn, all the fems that I ever met that proclaimed themselves feminists were the militant type, ones that put down anyone that would open a door for them unless it was a female (and then they would look at me funny), ones that berated dates for trying to pay the bill, ones that said all their problems came from men trying to dominate them, and who would, quite seriously, say that a woman could do anything a man could but better. Luckily for me I've only known five, one from high school, the others in college. But, all in all I was *really* put off by that, and avoided all contact with anything that might be feminist BECAUSE they were so unreasonable. Now, I'm not saying that all feminists are like that, in fact from what I have seen here, not all are. However, I just wanted to point out that there are still a lot of women that simply turn others off with behavior that could even be assigned to the irrational, unreasonable sterotype of a female that they are supposed to be countering. In fact, when I heard about the ERA in school I was dead set against it, knowing little other than what the "feminist" said about it. It didn't make sense to me to have standards lowered for firemen so that more women could be firemen, it didn't make sense to actually *make* everyone hire women just because they were women and needed women to meet federal quotas, and most of all I *am*not*a*MAN and I didn't want men and women to be the same thing like they said it would do. I know a little more, now. And, yes, I agree with Lynn that a less radical approach would probably have made it a lot easier to swallow. Of course I think that I was in high school or intermediate school at that time, so it really didn't matter; but, I can easily see where it would have frightened a lot of women at that time. Liralen Li -- "A closed mouth gathers no foot." USENET: ihnp4!akgua!sb6!fluke!uw-vlsi!li ARPA: li@vlsi.cs.washington.arpa
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (10/10/86)
> Look at the "slogans" that are still being taught today. > "A man's GOT TO fight his own battles" > "A man's GOT TO stand up for himself" > "A man's GOT TO show strength" > "A man's GOT TO take control of the situation" > "Sometimes you HAVE TO fight to be a man" > "Real Men don't cry" > "Real men don't show fear" Problem is, some of these are true either way. Others are lies either way. There *are* times that you have to stand up for what's right or for what's yours or ... and there are a *few* times when you'd better not show fear or weakness. But just a few. More often, you just have to put that need aside for later. Go through with it now, and cry when you get offstage, or quiver when you're back in your own safe home. These are skills, and should not be turned into role demands. The problem is that we (you, I, the dog next door) don't see these things in their proper light, and certainly can't live them that way. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mcvoy@rsch.WISC.EDU (Lawrence W. McVoy) (10/14/86)
Ah, shucks, here I've been reading this group for months, hoping to never have to post, and you, cheryl, had to open your big mouth and jab a guy where it hurts. Jeezzz... Well, here goes. Oops, before I forget and if you haven't figured it out yet, this is what some would call a F L A M E In article <1116@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >In article <153@endot.UUCP> tookman@endot.UUCP (kathy) writes: >>I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to >>be a feminist without protesting everything. > >And what is it that you intend to accept rather than protest? >Do you propose to accept everything, rather than be accused >of protesting everything? So, cheryl, let me ask you: would you have every woman protest absolutely everything? And, I think you missed the point here. If I may be so bold as to put words in kathy's mouth, I think what she is saying here is "you don't have to shriek your views to the world in order for them to be considered valid". Now, a moment of reflection, please. Why do you think she (a w*o*m*a*n) is saying this? Hmm? Well, it *could* be that she's whipped. She's found the man of her dreams and decided that men are really keeno. It *could* be that she's given up. Too much work, ya know. Or, perhaps, she's found that men (key point here, cheryl, are you listening?) are sick and f*cking tired of paying for the sins of those that went before them. I know I am. I know a lot of my male friends are. "Ah ha!", you say, "well, you must all be assholes then." Not, so, cheryl, not at all. In fact, I'm really a nice guy; I'm supportive of my female friends, I am sensitive to those little things that bother women so much (Hey, I pee siting down -- it's the only way I can remember to keep the goddamn seat down) and I act accordingly, etc. All, in all, a real product of the 70's feminist movement. Not a wimp, mind you, just aware of the female as well as the male side of an issue. So, you ask, what is the point? The point, cheryl, is that I am sick of you, your feminist friends, and everyone that acts like you. You would make me responsible for everything that has happened to you that you thought was a male chauvinist act. Well, hey, cheryl! F*ck you too. *I* didn't do it, I don't propogate those ideas, why should I have to deal with your abuse? As time goes on, more and more women are realizing that they can't bad mouth their male friends and lovers and have them put up with it forever. Nobody likes being an asshole by virtue of their sex alone. So shape up! >when what they deserved was to be run out of town, sued to the >gills, thrown in jail, had their self-serving laws declared >unconstitutional, changed their laws behind their backs... and >(to make things even) ... had childeren of their sex killed at >birth, had all their property rights removed, denied them access >to an education, humiliated them regularly and pubically, had >degrading pornographic films taken of them and used against them >socially, professionally and psychologically, and used them as >domestic slaves for four thousand years. Nice, cheryl, really subtle. >just like I almost ignored your timid little mealy-mouthed posting. Hey, I wasn't to timid for you, was I?
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (10/16/86)
> . . . > My first introduction to feminism wasn't soft-spoken or patient. She > was an English teacher I had in high school with whom I had a rather > strong personality clash. This teacher felt that her daughter would > suffer no ill effects from being shuttled into a day-care center asap > after birth; >. . . . She made students whose > mothers were housewives feel inferior (we had to say "domestic > engineer" in order to avoid a scathing attack on our mothers' values), > and failed one girl who didn't happen to watch the Bobby Riggs/Billy > Jean King tennis match. We were forced to listen to "women's music" > and told us that Heinlein was sexist for writing what he did in the > '50's while Shakespeare wasn't anti-semitic for writing "comedies" > which didn't have happy endings for the Jews. She treated anyone who > didn't espouse and embrace her viewpoints like mud, and her way of > presenting feminism was enough to almost make me want to become > Phyllis Schafly II. > Yes, there ARE women out there who fit the stereotyped feminist model, > just as there are cool, calm, and soft-spoken ones. Those of us in > the latter group need to enlighten women who have been scared off by > the more militant model, because it's frightened women reacting to > MILITANT (read: stereotypical) feminists who side up with Phyllis > Schafly even though they'd probably embrace the ERA and concepts such > as "equal work, equal pay" if they were presented in a more gentle > fashion. There are insensitive, loud, and hurtful people on every side of every issue. There are people willing to use power over people to make themselves feel good and damn the consequences: teachers who pull this crap on adolescent students are not that many steps up from pedophiles who convince themselves that the sex that they enjoy with toddlers is a loving act. When feminism becomes a struggle of awareness (``we have met the enemy and he is us'' - Kelly) and a question of basic fairness, it usually wins allies. When it becomes a question of who's going to take power from whom, you get about as much cooperation and real growth as you do during a bananna republic coup -- which it is, really: one group taking by force what another holds by foce, when the force was unjustified in the first place. This isn't to say that confronting someone with a clash in his values and exploiting it is necessarily either a good or a bad thing: it has been used to both ends. But where it has been used, via the courts and via other emotional processes, it *can* be a means to individual and group growth. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.