Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!wjr
From: wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Offensensistivity II
Message-ID: <661@frog.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Feb-86 18:54:57 EST
Article-I.D.: frog.661
Posted: Fri Feb 14 18:54:57 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Feb-86 21:30:47 EST
References: <8342@ucla-cs.ARPA> <2581@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Reply-To: wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Church of the Holy Starship
Lines: 62
Summary: 

In article <2088@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes:
>You seem to be trying to confirm this theory I have about feminists.
>Any line or quote that *can* be interpreted in a manner that is
>insulting to women *will* be interpreted in a manner that is insulting
>to women, even if it takes a lot of stretching, even if it takes a
>logical fallacy (as it did in the case of Fr.  Woolley's joke), even if
>the author intended no insult and no normal reader would see the insult
>unless he/she was looking for one.

I'd like to gently object to your use of "feminist".  Sure I know what
you mean, and if, in private mail, you want to compare lists, I'd bet
we're both flamed at the same gals who spend half their day collecting
grudges and the other half flaming about them.

(And probably at the same antijokers in net.jokes, etc.)

But some of us refuse to let "politically correct" "feminists" dictate
our attitudes and behavior as firmly as we refuse to let men or any
other group define our selfhood.

I have never authorized Batwoman or any other "feminist" to put words
in my mouth, and neither will I permit you to do so.  I hope you don't
feel flamed, because if I had a buck for every time I've forcibly
restrained myself from flaming Batwoman, I could fly out to her site
and verify my suspicion that she's really some idiot's idea of a
practical joke on all of us.  I mean, did Bird Dog leave the net or
have a digital sex change?

_Some_ feminists >resemble another group of people who listen to
>popular music very carefully looking for lyrics that advocate Satanism
>or drug abuse.  It works like a Rorschach test... what they find
>reveals more about them than about the music.

But not all of us.  But then, I don't go out of my way to listen to
Satanist lyrics (Satanists define themselves by their opposition to
xian propaganda, as the sort of "feminist" you just flamed define
themselves in hostility to men) and I've never objected to "Puff the
Magic Dragon", either.

>The quote from Aristotle may be taken as referring to unfaithfulness
>in general, but no, it "obviously" had to be intended as a deliberate
>insult aimed at women.  Though, sometimes, it will be my intention
>to insult and offend feminists, it will not be my intention to insult
>women.

Couldn't you just insult the women who act like idiots, and let those
of us who may or may not describe ourselves as feminists USE the word if
we find it useful.

In any case, I would assume that having an orgasm (at which point
further male participation in reproduction becomes optional) is less
vivid than lying on an uncomfortable table grunting out a baby.  I
know I'd remember more clearly getting seven pounds of baby out than
squirting a few million sperms.

				STella Calvert

		Every man and every woman is a star.

Guest on:	...!decvax!frog!wjr
Life:		Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits>
			!SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachusetts
Future:			...	(!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)