NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/men/21955

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 2.4 KB

Xref: sparky soc.men:21955 alt.feminism:6673
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!panther!mothost!lmpsbbs!areaplg2.corp.mot.com!bhv
From: [e-mail] (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Feminist group disrupts men's meeting
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 11:31:01 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 137.23.47.37
Lines: 35

In article <[e-mail]> ([e-mail] (SunCat)) writes:
)In article <[e-mail]>,
)[e-mail] (Dave Gross) wrote:
)>
)> Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
)> From: New Liberation News Service <[e-mail]>
)> Subject: NLNS: Feminists Integrate Men-Only Rape Talk
)> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
)> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:24:50 GMT
)>
)> Feminists Integrate Men-Only Rape Talk
)
)The title implies that somebody has done something wrong.  I thought I
)might read about something actually bad like Doubiagio's (sp?) vicious
)attack on Robert Bly in _Ms._ earlier this year.  The text does not support
)the implication made in the title.
)
)If we are to believe the text, women entered a meeting of a public
)organization, held on public property and presented information.  So what?
)This is protected by Florida's Sunshine law and I am sure everyone would
)like to have such protection, at least when it protects oneself.  If you
)fear information what the hell are you doing on USENET?

Actually, I hope some men's group decides to 'Integrate' a woman-only
NOW meeting about rape.  If the particular statistics that the 'feminists'
were distributing about rape were anything like the one's I've seen, there is
a *lot* to criticize about them.  The men's group could go in and
distribute their literature criticizing the NOW statistics.  (If Koss
was one of their sources, which seems likely as it is mentioned that she
has recived support from NOW, she's one of the sources that I mentioned
as being easy to criticize).

I'm not holding my breath, but this is a great opportunity to turn the tables
a bit - IMO.  The specific idea of visiting NOW might fail on the public/
private distinction, however.