Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!mikes From: mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women Subject: Re: Feminists Message-ID: <7693@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Sep-86 20:57:33 EDT Article-I.D.: tekecs.7693 Posted: Tue Sep 30 20:57:33 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 04:54:35 EDT References: <4107@reed.UUCP> <7428@sun.uucp> <153@endot.UUCP> <1116@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 86 Xref: watmath soc.singles:271 soc.women:182 > In article <153@endot.UUCP> tookman@endot.UUCP (kathy) writes: >> I hope people these days realize that it's entirely possible to >> be a feminist without protesting everything. > > And what is it that you intend to accept rather than protest? > Do you propose to accept everything, rather than be accused > of protesting everything? Lay off the logical imbalances, Cheryl. No one said anything about accepting everything, only about not protesting everything. It has been my experience that you can't fight ALL the fights, no matter how good they are. You have to choose your battles, usually by personal and geographical proximity. A friend of mine's mother works with the Alaska state government as a lawyer, and sometimes gets called a "girl", "lady", "Miss", etc. While she is strongly and vocally feminist, she lets these things go by (unless they were intentionally meant demeaningly). She has more important issues to worry about than correcting someone's grammer to meet current social norms. This does not imply a "mealy-mouthed" nature within her, rather it implies a desire to maximize her efforts, so that her presence might do the most good for all concerned. >> I mean in the 70's everyone was more radical and it gave >> non-feminists a bad taste in their mouths (so to speak). > > AWWWW, I feel SO sorry for them. We put a bad taste in their mouths, > when what they deserved was to be run out of town, sued to the > gills, thrown in jail, had their self-serving laws declared > unconstitutional, changed their laws behind their backs... I see. What was that you said about digging two graves when you go looking for revenge (in another posting)? Seriously, while screaming until you are blue in the face about social issues may get something done, it is only because you have managed to get the attention of those people with whom we have invested our social power...namely Congress. Tact has its place too, and leaving a 'bad taste' in someone's mouth is a consequence you have to consider when you stand up for what you think is right (even though it may not change what you do). > and (to make things even) ... had childeren of their sex killed at > birth, had all their property rights removed, denied them access > to an education, humiliated them regularly and pubically, had ^^^^^^^^^ should I assume you meant "publically"? I can't tell. > degrading pornographic films taken of them and used against them > socially, professionally and psychologically, and used them as > domestic slaves for four thousand years. I'm sure we can all see how far taking Cheryl's proposed line of action would lead us toward real social egalitarianism. [What if, say, 4000 years ago, all society was ruled by women, and men were thought to be inferior? One day, the men got fed up and decided that turnabout was fair play. So they began subjugating the women, re-inventing all their common wisdom and fables to support the view of the superior man, all the while thinking it was great fun and that they would eventually, after a generation or two, set everything right and be equal with the women as they knew they should be. Its just that, well, someone forgot... :-) :-)] > I'm SO afraid of putting a bad taste in their mouths, oh, yes. > > >Some feminists just haven't learned that screaming your views at > >some people don't make them listen--if anything they block their > >ears completely. > > And you think that whispering your views will make them listen? > I've got news for you. If you whisper, your voice will be ignored, > just like I almost ignored your timid little mealy-mouthed posting. > > >kathy I would think that by now we would have all seen enough quiet whispering (which is not, in all fairness, what Kathy was suggesting) and its quiet lack of results; enough rancorous, ill-reasoned screaming and its empty feeling of accomplishment; and enough stiff-lipped silence and its hope that things will somehow get better. Aren't we ready and able to speak in thinking, rational tones and really achieve a greater measure of social equality and responsibility for all of us? I thought we were, but given Cheryl's posting above, maybe I was wrong. -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0