Subject: Cyberfeminism - in reply to Linda's post
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) (iriXx@iriXx.org)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 18:56:50 EST
[Reposting as the original didn't appear]
You miss my argument, because you have been blinded to what has happened
to society. Society is now falling apart because of the actions taken by
Liberal activists of the 1970s. But those who s*bscribe to it find it
difficult to see the results that their actions have wreaked on society
as a whole - and to bring this back on topic - to our universities, and
to 'women's music' - something which has become an ugly and twisted
music, not a music of true femininity.
Affirmative Action was a wrong answer to any form of abuse. I do not
deny that abuse occured - but Affirmative Action is not the way.
Affirmative Action means creating /unequal/ rights - rights for minority
groups which /exclude/ the majority.
Isn't that precisely the sort of exclusion you were referring to that
happened to women in the 70s?
"Feminine" activism isnt what i'd call it either. it is most certainly
/not/ feminine to behave in the way that such activists behave -
Feminazi is the more accurate term. Discriminatory, with an aggressive
hatred towards men, which has unfortunately been so in-bred as to be
taught from mother to daughter. it is destroying our society. it has
already destroyed the natural relationship between woman and man,
creating a breakdown in family structure. it is destroying the beauty of
nature's creation of the individual as man and woman, and the beauty of
their interaction, which ought to occur on an /equal/ level.
Likewise, Affirmative Action has destroyed actual relationships between
men and women, and between races. Look at the divorce rate rising ever
higher since your lovely movement of the 1970s. Look at the hatred
between races that has only increased in recent years.
It has driven men to react, in hatred towards the aggression of feminazi
It has left white men in a position where they are now the minority - is
this what you wanted to achieve?
White men now find it difficult to get jobs, white men are treated with
the same rejection and discrimination as black women might have been
treated in the very situations you have described.
But thank you for confirming that there /are/ and /were/ quotas for male
and female - this was denied by most on the list. That there do exist
quotas, written or unwritten, for the number of women who receive
academic posts, placement in schools, and artistic grants. In the case
of grant applications, its usually a written obligation. If you want a
grant, make sure you're in every minority group possible - minorities
which are now the majority, who enjoy priveleges /over/ and above equal
rights for all.
Thanks to Affirmative Action, it is now law to leave a white male
without a job.
Actually, i believe this /was/ the agenda of the Feminazi movement - to
subdue and bash all men into submission, into the position where they
were a minority, as vengeance. Vengeance is not the way to make change -
it is the path which has lead into the stubborn endless conflicts
between Israel and Palestine, between the Balkan states and between the
Northern Irish and Eire. All of which have had required intervention on
the part of the US military to put a stop to endless, mindless conflict.
I'd compare the action of the Feminazi to such mindless conflict. Take
for example the lack of logic, of emotionally based thinking rather than
reasoning that is behind every Feminazi argument. I can quote examples
if you require. There is no rationality in mindless man-bashing.
But the most dangerous thing of all is that this attitude has already
been bred into our society by being passed from mother to daughter.
Women's behaviour, and girl's behaviour in this society towards men is
absolutely appalling - snobbery at best, and aggression at its worst.
It's little wonder the divorce rate has risen, that families break apart
- if women alienate men, for their own selfish needs, they will drive
away their own husbands in the process. Do we really want this?...
Or do we /really/ want a breed of men who are no longer men, those few
who have been beaten into submission as 'new age men' and are so
adherent to PC to the extent where they are no longer /male/, they no
longer have the strength to enjoy their true nature and manhood.
Women have the right to enjoy womanhood too - but i see no femininity in
Feminazism. Gone are the days of the beauty of male and female social
exchanges, of gentlemanliness and womanliness. These have all been
destroyed by the feminist movement.
Man - i use the word deliberately, as i find the generic word Man for
humankind quite acceptable (note that the German population, from where
our English language derives, have no issues with using the word 'Man'
in general conversation as the generic for humankind). Man was created
by nature in such a way that men need to be fully a man, and women need
to be fully a woman, to enjoy one another's natural intercourse (in all
senses of the word). If a man is not fully allowed to be a man - which
the Feminazi's would have - then this cannot occur. Equality cannot
occur. Your purpose as a feminist is defeated. If women evolve into this
destructive - and often highly masculine - ugly creature - then they
destroy their own natures as women, and lose their enjoyment of natural
intercourse between the sexes also. Man and woman were made for each
other - in group interaction as well as within relationships - and men
were made to interact with men, just as women were made to interact with
women. And i'm never going to lose the word 'man' within the word
'woman', as such ridiculous feminists have proposed - I am proud to be
'of man', as the word 'woman' derives I believe in Hebrew - to play my
role as a woman in being 'of man' - because it is within a man's nature
to lead, and for a woman to contribute. That is - truly - an equal role.
When a woman leads - take the world's few woman leaders and name me one
single female in leadership who has not turned into an aggressive, ugly
distortion. Margaret Thatcher, anyone? Likewise, i look upon those men
who have been beaten into a less than manly role with pity. Pity, but
not compassion - they have chosen this way. Contribution, in the role of
a woman, is no less equal - man cannot exist alone without the
contribution and support of women, and men look to women - if women
would actually give them a chance - for such support - they cherish a
woman and hold her in the highest of respect when they can enjoy true
intercourse between the sexes.
Now that's what i'd call equality.
I say no to the feminist movement - and go right ahead and accuse me of
being a traditionalist, because i am. Traditional family values, as
advocated by Compassionate (Neo-)Conservatism, are an attempt to return
to true gentlemen and women, the gentlemanliness and womanliness of the
times of our Founding Fathers, and the equal and pleasant social
intercourse which has been destroyed by the Liberal Left. Compassionate
Conservatism is not the complete solution either, but at least it is
heading in the right direction, in trying to pick society up from the
shattered pieces which it lays in, of which Feminazism has to be one of
/the/ major culprits, if not the culprit itself.
But that's enough for now.
Linda A Seltzer wrote:
>I'm not sure what Mirian was referring to. But as for feminism in the late 20th Century and early 21st Century, I can speak from personal experience about post-suffragette feminism in the U.S.
>Until the mid 1970's, when the anti-discrimination laws were passed in the U.S, newspapers ran separate classified ads employment, Help Wanted - Male, and Help Wanted - Female. Also, the career placement offices at colleges and universities (such as the University of Pennsylvania, when I graduated with a B.A., had separate job listings, interviews, and placements for man and for women. This was completely legal. Feminist activism was necessary to work for laws against what is now called intentional discrimination. Such a need for equality under the law was the motivation for the feminist movement in the late 60's and early 70's. Of course, there were cultural changes coompanying this. For example, university women did not want to be called "chicks" any longer.
>In order to enforce court orders agaunst intentional discrimination, the concept arose, and some corporations, such as AT&T, instituted Affirmative Action programs. During that period I was a member of the executive director's affirmative action
>program for our business unit of AT&T. The affirmative action program reviewed the statistics on the hiring of women in the company, but there were no set quotas. The program was similar for minorities. The main activity of the affirmative action program was to handle complaints of incidences of harassment of minorities and women.
>Most of the complaints were from minorities. For example, an African American male manager requested a lock for his office door because someone had entered his office at night and slashed a photograph of him and his wife on vacation. Another African American man was receiving objects, such as a douche bag, in the company mail. There was a group of four women who said that their supervisor had not given them a performance review according to the company's rules. Affirmative action was later phased out in favor of non-discrimination. Quotas are largely illegal in the U.S., but employment statistics in large companies can be used in discrimination cases.
>One of the next phases of feminism is fighting against sexual harassment. This battle is still ongoing. There are still other issues concerning women being treated with respect in the workplace.
>There are still battles that feminists have to fight in the U.S. The U.S. Social Security payments for the elderly are based upon the salary of the principal breadwinner in the family. Statistics have shown that women are paid less than men for the same jobs, and the wage gap is perpetuated by the glass ceiling and the tendency for women to not obtain the same jobs as men. The executive positions in high technology are almost exclusively filled by men, except for human resources management. Therefore, women receive lower Social Security benefits than men. Women
>who depended on a husband may lose eligibility for benefits due to divorce. Social Security is an example of discrimination that is systematic, rather than intentional.
>Women have to write letters to their Senators and Congressmen about this issue, which is discussed in Hillary Clinton's book. This is an example of how systematic discrimination has to be overcome with policies that promote equality.
>Another issue of crucial concern for women in the U.S. is that the age for Medicare was raised to 65. However, many women of the baby boomer generation will not have access to health insurance through employers, and the situation is reaching serious proportions for women aged 50-65. Many women (and possibly men, also) do not know where to find affordable health insurance between the 50's (when industry starts laying people off, and the age of 65, when Medicare kicks in). I personally have met too many women in this age group who do not have health insurance.
>I have discussed only the economic issues and not the reproductive issues or cultural
>and social issues. There is still a great deal for feminists to accomplish in the U.S.
>As for Mirian's comments, which I don't really understand, I don't see how any of these issues cause any destructiveness to men. This is especially true in the areas of Medicare and Social Security in the U.S. As for the wage gap, men have seen that having women in the workforce only helped them when the recession hit. When the male IT professionals were laid off, all of those nurses they were married to still had their jobs.
>Socially, there are still some men who feel threatened by intelligent women and who need to have bimbos and trophies. I don't think such men are in the majority any more. They may as well be ignored, unless, of course, a women gets stuck having to work for one of them.
-- 99% of aliens prefer Earth --Eminem
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.12 - Release Date: 1/14/2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:05 EST