[sent to a mailing list, not by me]

Firstly; apologies to everyone on the list who isn't in the least bit
interested in this debate.

Secondly; not having had a enough tea one morning doesn't justify writing
and sending something one isn't prepared to justify, so here goes:

Objections to my email have been raised as follows:
1) It's really about web-based pyramid schemes, and is quite obviously a
joke because it's impossible to do.
All true.  And as a parody of pyramid schemes it's very funny, because they
(pyramid schemes) are bleedin' ridiculous. I'm not against mocking chain
letters.

2) And doesn't really discriminate against women.
It doesn't discriminate, no.  In that it doesn't directly say, "don't
employ this amply-qualified woman for this job because women shouldn't be
in the work place," or similar.

3) In fact is makes men look pretty stupid!
True.  And that's pretty crap too.

4) It's only sexist if swapping the genders involved would be unacceptable.
"Women, send your hopeless man off and get lots of studs back" is quite
imaginable, although I wonder what we (society) would think about a
(hypothetical) woman who kept (or wanted) a hoard of men with her to
satisfy her every need... Would we say "Fair enough, it's what women want"
or would we say she was sex-crazed?  And what do we say about the
(hypothetical) man in the pyramid-scheme parody; "He's sex mad, it's
disgusting," or, "well, men want to have sex, it's only natural"?

It's true, men do want to have sex with women and women want to have sex
with men (broadly speaking).  But generally one at a time.  But I do
object, and will continue to object, to the objectification of women.  Not
only the idea that the women have no say in any of this, but also the bit
at the end:

"Statistically, among those women, there will be at least: 0.5 Miss Worlds,
2.5 models, 463 wild nymphos, 3,234 good-looking nymphos,20,198 who enjoy
multiple orgasms, and 40,198 bi-sexual women. In total, that is 64,294
women who are simply hornier, less inhibited, and tastier than the grumpy
old bag you posted off."

Which makes it clear that really, women are only of any use if they're
beautiful, mad about sex, or into three-somes.

Now, I don't believe, and am not saying, that any of the guys on the list
who've taken me up on this are rabid misogynists who think women should
stay chained to the kitchen sink.  I'm pointing out that emails like the
one in question show that despite what lots of people think, society's view
of women isn't yet where it could be.  And remember: whilst most of the men
I'm likely to meet at Cambridge Uni will probably fairly pro-women's
rights, this doesn't hold true for men in the country at large.


Other points:
1) "I have observed a common mistake that feminists make: they say the word
'sexist' but in fact mean 'not raving feminist'." (Neil)

I don't know (though I guess I can imagine) what you mean by 'raving
feminist.'  However, feminism as a movement is so diverse these days that
as a description of a point of view/set of opinions it's almost useless.
My idea of feminism is "advancing the cause of women's rights:" when we get
equal pay, decent political representation and a society that doesn't only
see us in relation to sex, then I'll be happy (and will start being even
more bothered by LBG stuff).  I don't hate men, I don't want to subjugate
them all, it's just ridiculous that, statistically speaking, they'll get an
easier ride through life.  I am not saying that it's all fun and games
being male, that there are no problems and no issues to be resolved.  But
I'm on the side of the underdog.  I do think some people take it too far
(wanting to get rid of all men), but that's not me.  I'd like equality (and
the moon on a stick...).

The issues involved here are complex and messy, and I certainly haven't
expressed myself as well as I could.  But I hope I was at least fairly
reasoned--I like to believe stereotypes are there to be proven
wrong--though deciding that is a subjective judgement, so I'm not overly
hopeful.