Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!mrgofor
From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross)
Newsgroups: net.jokes.d
Subject: Re: traditional values
Message-ID: <424@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jan-86 13:15:55 EST
Article-I.D.: mmm.424
Posted: Mon Jan 27 13:15:55 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jan-86 06:27:11 EST
References: <263@galbp.UUCP> <418@cisden.UUCP> <1124@oddjob.UUCP> <451@cisden.UUCP> <1142@oddjob.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross)
Distribution: net
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Lines: 69
Summary: 

In article <1142@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes:
>In article <451@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes:
>a reply to my protest about a posting of his in net.jokes. Roughly, he
...
>tell you that rape normally involves deliberate humiliation of the victim and
>violent assault; they will also tell you that most rapes go unreported because
>victims fear they won't be believed. Prostitutes are particularly vulnerable in
>this regard. 
>
>
>>I recently posted (to net.jokes) what still strikes me as a very funny
>>joke that depended for its effect on a sudden realization of the previous
>>history of one of the characters, i.e. that she'd obtained the money she
>>was depositing by prostitution.  
>
>That *isn't* the point of the 'joke': if you think it is then you don't 
>understand what you wrote. 

Are you related to Doug Alan? :-)

>>
>>"Sexist" as I understand it means something like "characterised by a
>>belief that women are in some way inferior to men". 
> 
>I was using the word in the wider sense of "reinforcing a world-view which
>sustains the unequal treatment of men and women". Sorry if that was too loose.
>
 
 And how does the joke do that?

>>Is a sense of humour incompatible with a respect for women?
>Absolutely. It is well known that all feminists (and especially male feminists)
>are dour, humourless puritans. (:-))

Well, judging from your reaction to the joke, I would say that that last remark
was right on, excluding the smiley face. As a matter of fact, most of the women
I know who call themselves "feminists" *are* rather lacking in a sense of humor.
Most of the women I know who really ARE feminists (or liberated, whatever you
want to call it - PRACTICING feminists rather than BITCHING-AND-MOANING
feminists) don't even think about it much - they're too busy doing the things
that self-proclaimed "feminists" claim they aren't allowed to do. 

For example, once I was on a first date with a woman and throughout the evening
we had discussed the things we had done in our lives, and I was very pleasantly 
impressed - she had done a lot of interesting things (worked with Ralph Nader,
traveled the world, etc.), and I LIKE women who are not afraid of going out
and doing things women are "not supposed to do". Anyway, I made the comment
to her to the effect that there wasn't much that I could tell her about, she
seemed to know about a wide variety of things - then I thought for a minute
and said, "Well, there is one thing I have done that I bet you haven't."
She said, "What?", to which I responded, "Peed on the side of a building."
Well, I thought it was funny, but that basically marked the end of fun
for that evening. Oh well.

Anyway, I thought Fr. Wooley's joke was funny, and not in the least bit sexist,
but then I've proven myself to be a crude and disgusting person anyway.

I have a question for Adrian, though. In all seriousness, the woman in the 
joke was clearly a prostitute (at least part-time :-)). She provided sex
for money, and the john did not pay her for her services. The question
is - do you consider that rape?

		-MKR


>
>>				      Fr. John Woolley
>
>                                                ak