NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/bi/17088

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 4.8 KB

Xref: sparky soc.bi:17088 soc.motss:53309
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!europa.asd.contel.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!auntbea.austin.ibm.com!alan
From: [e-mail] (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Sender: [e-mail] (News id)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:48:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: (speaking only for myself from Austin, Texas)
Lines: 98

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (ryerson.schwark) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>>
>>Any philosophy that excludes nearly half the human race is,
>>by my definition, untenable.
>
>Why do you think empowering women excludes men?

Sigh.  I didn't say it, Melinda and Mara did.  PLEASE only attribute
to me what I say.  Its quite enough having to defend THAT, thank you!


>>>I'm not trying to say that "feminism" shouldn't educate men (as well
>>>as women).  I'm also not saying that "feminists" shouldn't educate
>>>men (as well as women).
>>
>>But you just contradicted yourself.  IF you consider yourself
>>a feminist, AND you believe it is NOT your job, as a feminist, to
>>use your time and energy in the education of the clueless [sic] men,
>>THEN WHO should educate such "clueless men?"
>
>Themselves. society. other men.  women who aren't too tired from
>doing it all the time.

Again, you begged the point, but OK.  So, in Ry's eyes, they
should do it, other men should do it, and this amorphous construct
called "society" should do it.  But, aren't we talking about how
to convince society to believe?


>>You can't have it both ways:  either feminists have an outreach
>>program for clueless men, or they don't.  Either its inclusive,
>>or its just another closed society.  But, of course, I'm not
>>a clueless person.  And are YOU the one to define feminism?
>
>Wrong.  They can and do have it both ways, that's the way these
>things work.  They're not black and white.  Your statements imply
>that you think there's some monolithic group out their deciding
>these things and making them happen.  There isn't.

Ry, its as if you didn't read Mara's response, and are just focusing
on what I'm saying.  *I* don't think there is some monolithic
group of "feminists" out there, Mara indicated that.

>>In my discussions with feminists who happen to be women, I have
>>not been faced so much anger as I've seen here.
>
>Maybe because there you've appeared to listen more and speak
>less than you do here,

.... but you seem to do nothing BUT speak, without READING
precisely what has been written, and by WHOM.


> and maybe because this forum generates
>a little more honesty than face to face discussions where ingrained
>social habits often cause us not to tell somebody to fuck off
>when we really want to.

Oh no, in my educational process I've been told MANY times to
fuck off, to get fucked (nice invitation, that), and to shove it
up my ass (another intriguing possiblity, especially considering
who was giving me the suggestion at the time - my wife.  As a
matter of fact ..... :-)


>>I confess:  I'm not very interested in fighting very old battles,
>>And, implementation means WIDESPREAD acceptance.  I advocate
>>the use of humor, and tolerance, and education, and FUN as
>>techniques for doing so.  If its HIP to be like this, then it
>>WILL be accepted.
>
>So use your tools!  other people will use other tools, but
>cease telling people that yours are the *RIGHT* tools when there
>are dozens that all work.  They may not be your style, but they
>work.  The attitude that there is one way, your way, of achieving
>a diverse set of goal comes off sounding very conceited.
>
>Ry Schwark
>[e-mail]

This is the FIRST valid thing you've written, of course IMHO.
I perceive that you are correct - I should try out my own technique.

I would also observe that the women's movement is all but dead
in the popular media/culture.  So, my GUESS is that whatever has
been tried out generally, isn't working so well.

Can someone out there define the feminist agenda for me, or would
this be considered a complete waste of time since I might actually
not "get" some of it, and might have some trenchant observations
on other parts?  This is a test, friends .....

--
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. [e-mail] | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} auntbea.austin.ibm.com![e-mail] | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea