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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!hollis
From: hollis@ucf-cs.UUCP (William )
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Backlash to Feminism
Message-ID: <1648@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Nov-84 14:05:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1648
Posted: Sat Nov  3 14:05:58 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 05:31:46 EST
Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL
Lines: 67

[]
> >>>...(reply)...
> >>>Sherry Mann
> >>...(reply to Sherry Mann)...
> >>Ken Hollis
> >Every social movement has had its growing pains...
> >  .
> >  .
> >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.
> 
> Ken Hollis

:Come on, man! There have been *many* attacks on abortion clinics (including
:bombings), and the number of such attacks is increasing at an alarming rate. 
:The Reagan Justice Department has so far refused to do anything about it, 
:claiming it is not a violation of anyone's civil rights. Baloney! These are
:attacks on women's right to control their own bodies. "If men could have
:children, abortion would be a sacrament."

:And there has been no official recognition of the problem of wife abuse. It
:is mostly grass roots organizations that establish "safe houses" for abused
:women and their families. Violence against women is "acceptable" in this
:society (especially if it's is against one's "own" woman).  Violence against 
:*property* (not your own), on the other hand, is strictly forbidden.

:"Forget it, Hugh, it's a Republican administration."

:gary cottrell	(allegra or seismo)!rochester!gary  (UUCP)
:		gary@rochester (ARPA)


I almost was ready to refuse to respond to the stupidity of this 'reply', but
thought on second hand it might be better not to let it pass.  It is  v e r y
clear that you oppose the Reagan administration, and that is where your
idiotic comments seem to stem from.  I doubt seriously if Reagan is holding
back the arms of the justice department, and even so, it would be unfair to
classify all men as being under the control of this administration, or if
that is true, what would you classify yourself? (Definitely *NOT* a man,
asexual perhaps? (;->))...

I personally am for 'free choice', as many males and females are, and do not
consider this to be a point upon which the gender makes the difference.  If
you had had the intelligence to get the gist of my argument, I was saying that
men 'as a group' had not bombed feminist headquarters.  I know about violence
against women, and I do not find ANY violence against ANYONE acceptable,
against children, dogs, cats, etc.  There has been SOME recognition at local
levels of wife abuse, and with all the media attention, it is growing.  I for
one do not expect *any* problem to be solved overnight, and I sincerely hope
that you have some slight vestige of your mind left to realize this.

As a friend of mine would say, "It really doesn't matter"...It looks like
Reagan is going to be in for the next four years anyway, but that belongs on
net.politics.

Ken Hollis