Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: San Quentin strip searches -- a new twist
Message-ID: <966@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 19:58:50 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.966
Posted: Thu Feb 14 19:58:50 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 04:28:24 EST
References: <3365@alice.UUCP> <2295@randvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 25
Summary: 

I didn't mean to, but I accidentally reread the last paragraph of
Ed Hall's article and noticed a real gem there:

>Meanwhile,
>``men's rights'' people claim the right to be crybabies, saying that
>women have the right to be equal to them (though, of course, few are),
>but better not show even a temporary and miniscule amount of superiority
>(heaven forbid!).

Throughout his article, he contrasts cases of unequal treatment of men
and women, claiming that the cases where women get the short end of the
deal are more severe that those in which it's the men who get screwed.
So one would assume, from the context of the rest of his article, that the
equality he is talking about in the first half of the sentence is equality
of treatment.  Yet in the second half of his sentence, he contrasts
equality of treatment with superiority, and he appears to mean superiority
of *merit*.  

Now, if, by equality,  he means equality of merit, then his comment in
parentheses implies that most women are inferior.  And if he means equality
of treatment, contrasting it with superiority of merit suggests that
the people who are treated better *are* better.  No self-respecting 
liberal or radical would confess to believing something like that.
-- 
	David Canzi