🚀 go-pugleaf

cas@muffin.pronet.com (Craig Sanders) writes:

>cjmount@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Christopher Mountford) writes:

>> If Rosie has a problem with you then I will and did leave that to
>> her. But if any woman feels opressed, I've seen it enough to want to
>> help her fight it.

>Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps, just maybe, your
>knight-in-shining-armour routine could be displaced patriarchy?

Yes I have thought that maybe I could be contributing to the problem. 
I decided to make sure that I didn't represent her or anyone, only
myself. But I don't think it's patriarchal to say

"hey, I think this is a beat up, I think she has a point, I think I've
seen that shit happen, and most importantly, LET HER SPEAK FOR HERSELF,
let her speak without being beaten down with the same old usual rabid-
feminist perjoratives."

I've simply tried to expose what has been a load
of pathetic and frightened little brats from holding back the clock on
the completion of something that will benefit everyone. 

I don't think encouraging people to think about the situation instead of
convenienttly writing off any radical dissent as simply too nutty to
allow voicing, creedence and exploration amounts to being a protective
Knight-In-Shining-Armour, I don't do it for myself, or for a quick fuck
as Mark Newton suggested. If I wanted a fuck I would certainly not be
messing around on USENET debating post-structuralism, I'd be next door
getting to know the leather-clad babe I've been seening around the place.
Believe it or not, the idea of supporting a person's unpopular views as
worthy of creedence, based on my own experience fails dismally to give 
me a hard on.

>Amazing as it may sound to you, women are actually big enough and strong
>enough to look after themselves without some patronising shithead
>reinforcing the mass-media-imposed victim mentality.

This is not in the least bit amazing to me. Of course women can fight well
enough alone. BUT WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY DESERVE???
The media has nothing to with it, except they are part of the problem, 
as usual.

>> Even if you were right about everything you said. There has been very
>> little real personal backlash against anyone but rosie on these news
>> groups in this thread. I have been defending my perception of the
>> generic problems faced by women as characterised by what Rosie said
>> about how *she* *felt* she had been treated.

>Actually, from what i've seen of this thread there has been a fair
>amount of well-deserved personal backlash against you as well.

Really? I don't think anything anyone's said about me personally is
particularly relevant. We could have had a whole lot higher standard
of criticism of me. But I don't think anyone wants to hear it. In fact,
no-one wanted to talk about it at all. Most of the small amount of 
abuse of me has been "shut up, Rosie is a bitch" and other such gems.


>> But I don't take sides with personal arguments.

>Then what the fuck are you doing in this thread?  For that is exactly
>what you are doing.  Have the guts to admit to yourself what it is you
>are doing, rather than hypocritically claiming the high moral ground of
>objective arbitrator.  What a joke!

>-- 
>cas@muffin.apana.org.au

It's not a joke. I have repeated again and again that I don't give a shit
about personal fights here. I have said nothing personal about anyone. 
I may have said someone is full of shit, but that's as bad as it got.
Nothing. I don't claim either objectivity or high moral ground, I take the
side of someone who is given abuse solely for dissent that I think is 
well founded. It's really quite a simple thing. I take sides, based
on what I see is true. That's what the fuck I am doing in this thread,
have you read it?

Engine.