Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!hollis
From: hollis@ucf-cs.UUCP (William )
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: (etc...) (etc...) Backlash to Feminism
Message-ID: <1625@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Oct-84 19:53:46 EST
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1625
Posted: Mon Oct 29 19:53:46 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Nov-84 01:49:14 EST
Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL
Lines: 67



<>

>>>> ...(backlash of feminist movement)....

>>>...(reply)...
>>>Sherry Mann

>>...(reply to Sherry Mann)...
>>Ken Hollis

>Every social movement has had its growing pains...
>  .
>  .
>  .
>reactions that some of its members might have.  Also, there might have been
>a lot of anti-male propaganda going on, but it has hardly led to any real
>violence against men,and has even been used to justify violence by men against
>women, so who is hating who here?

Well, personally I remember little of any bombing of feminist headquarters by
extremist male groups (:->), but seriously, there is very little that women
can do to males.  There is pretty well full intergration of both males and
females in society.  The only violence that males may produce upon females
would be on a one-to-one basis, and that in my opinion is the mental problem
of the attacker, and can be handled in court.  I might also point out that 'the
tongue is sharper than the sword', ie, I have seen many fights where the male
was hacked down piece by piece, and he didn't even get physically touched by
the female assailant.

I do have to admit that there are other subtle ways to produce negative effects
which could be seen as a sort of anger, ie not promoting someone because of
their race/creed/sex, whatever but again these are personal problems and cannot
be viewed in terms of the population as a whole.

>Also, if you remember well, feminism, as other social movements was interested
>in power-sharing at the beginning rather than a reevaluation of the system. 
>Women saw men enjoying all sorts of privileges, so tried to emulate them in
>order to get some too.It was believed in the early feminist circles that women
>      .
>      .
>      .
>of people.  It is now admitted that men's positions are not necessarily
>enviable, and that they suffer from patriarchy too (though not to the same
>degree as women).  And men are jumping on the bandwagon now trying to change
>their roles too.  They are the ones who can evaluate better how it has
>done them a disservice, and it is up to them to communicate this to women,
>and as far as I know they're starting this communication.  There is hope,
>both men's and women's attitudes are changing.

>Sophie Quigley
>...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley

The part about 'power sharing' and 'oppressed behavior' are what I was
attempting to make a point about when referencing 'some are more equal than
others'.  I do not like for others to tell me that because they have been
oppressed (by my forefathers) that I must make amends.

I do have to admit to a change in the feminist attitude, and I do have to
say that primarily I have a problem with the Radical Feminist (you know the
type :->).  Even they are seeing (as you say) that men's positions are not
necessarily enviable.  I am happy that we both agree that there is now an
attempt to have a 'meeting of the minds'. Maybe this discussion would be more
appropriate on net.women?

   Ken Hollis