Re: Numbers (was:Re: Osborne response - Cyberfeminism)

Subject: Re: Numbers (was:Re: Osborne response - Cyberfeminism)
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) (
Date: Wed Jan 12 2005 - 19:37:11 EST

Eldad Tsabary wrote:

>Hmmm, so what are you saying Miriam?
>Where exactly is the point where the balance shifts a bit too much in
>your opinion towards feminism and men's losing their identity - what
>exactly is that identity? Does it involve power over women?
>Eldad Tsabary
Err... i thought i put it fairly clearly before, in my post about
feminazis - see 'Cyberfeminism revisited - Men as a minority group'...

i'm talking about the viciously anti-male stance that has unfortunately
been bred from the aggressive feminists of the 70s, to the even /more/
aggressive and anti-male post-feminist, who imposes this world-view on
her daughters.

i'm saying, the exclusion happening thesedays in grants, posts,
lectureships, school quotas, is biased towards 'affirmative action' - an
action that was less than affirmative and has left white males out in
the cold.

add to this the aggression of the feminazi, as defined in my earlier
post, and you find either a group of highly submissive males (i note the
amount of RL people who have missed the point of what i say entirely,
because they've been brainwashed into it over the last 30 years - i must
stress though that i'm /not/ accusing any of the male contributors to
this discussion of being in that submissive group - they have voiced
from their own point of view on the situation). or, as is the case in
the UK - you find a reluctance of men to get involved with women on more
than anything but a superficial basis.

not entirely OT either - as art always follows society, or the other way


99% of aliens prefer Earth

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:05 EST