Re: Cyberfeminism - in reply to Myriam's post


Subject: Re: Cyberfeminism - in reply to Myriam's post
From: Jean Piché (jean@piche.com)
Date: Sun Jan 16 2005 - 13:17:18 EST


I find this post profoundly saddening. That this was written by a
young woman does, indeed, lead us to wonder what went wrong where. To
have such crude, misinformed and unsophisticated thinking go on for the
length it does is truly disheartening. It brings the neocon ethos a
little too close for comfort. The lack of response so far is puzzling
and I feel I have to say something.

On 14-Jan-05, at 6:56 PM, miriam clinton (iriXx) wrote:

> 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.

Society is falling apart? You mean... disciplined young soldiers are
not marching in perfect lines? Is anyone forcing you to listen to ugly
and twisted music? On the other hand, we dont have the choice but
listen to "feminine" musics by Celine Dion everytime we go out to shop.
As long as something you like is being forced down on people, its ok?

> 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.

Excuse me, but what exactly do you know about such things?

> Affirmative Action means creating /unequal/ rights - rights for
> minority
> groups which /exclude/ the majority.

No, it doesn't mean that. The aim of AA was to redress an historical
imbalance and break down prejudice in hiring practices. It has largely
succeeded and its wonderful. The "majority", of which you claim to be,
now enjoys what was accomplished by AA.

> Isn't that precisely the sort of exclusion you were referring to that
> happened to women in the 70s?

AA never excluded anyone. You dont know what you are talking about.
There were occasional excesses but, let me introduce you to a
wonderful virtue of statistics: exceptions never makes the case. Untold
millions of people benefitted from AA.

> "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.

  I have met the odd unpleasant radical feminist, yes. They are a
rarity. Again: an exception does not make the rule. As to destroying
our society, no one keeps you from going barefoot in the kitchen and
taking the occasional slap in the back of the head with a rolled fist.
Still plenty of guys out there tø oblige you. Real men for real
women... you know?

> 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? Funny, it is more and more common to see groups of youg people
hanging out, all races, all creeds.. everywhere in western societies.
Divorce rates? You 'll be pleased to know that in "liberal" New
England, the divorce rates are a fraction of what they are in the
southern "conservative" states.

> It has driven men to react, in hatred towards the aggression of
> feminazi
> women.
>
> It has left white men in a position where they are now the minority -
> is
> this what you wanted to achieve?

They are? White men are a minority in western societies? Have you
actually checked this somewhere? Care to quote us the study that
determined this? Even if it was so, Miriam, are you telling us that
it's only a problem if white men are in a minority? If it's the other
"groups".. it doesn't matter?

> 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.

They are? Gosh. I guess someone is trying to fool us. The largest
group of employed people, in Canada at least, is made up of white men.
Did they steal their jobs from the black women while no one was
looking?

> 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.

An obligation? Hardly. A guideline at best. Looking at the grants
given by the Canada Council over the years, I would strawpoll (having
worked there) that about 60-70% of grants go to men of all ages. Again:
statistics really are wonderful when you care to examine them...

> Thanks to Affirmative Action, it is now law to leave a white male
> without a job.

A new conspiracy to generate white trash? Care to quote the law(s) you
are referring to?

> 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.

The Us military intervened in Ireland? in Palestine? Goodness you are a
veriatble fount of information, Miriam.

> 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.

Lack of logic? What color is the kettle again? Miriam, you are quite
spectacularly emotional in your argumentation. Almost every "factual"
assumption you made in the preceeding lines is bunk. Send in the US
military, i guess. They aren't particularly bothered with factual data
either.

> 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?...

Woman-hating here? Do you think because you are a woman, you are exempt?

> 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.

I wonder what the true nature of manhood is? Racist and loudmouthed?
HamfIsted slap in the back of the head? Miriam, you can move to South
Dakota or MIssissipi or Texas: true men still exist, the old age kind,
you know?

> 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.

Damn! You have to open your own door. Its the end of civilisation, no
doubt. You are too young to have known what you label as the "days of
the beauty of male and female social exchanges". Just to allay your
fears: much of it was smiling on the surface

> 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.

Hell of a rant here, Miriam. Where in the world do you hang out? I
know hundreds of relationships based on respect and "equality" that
fall neither into emasculation nor submission. What in your...erm,
theory.. would be considered to be "true intercourse"? Would it be
"masculine" of me to ask you if you have nice tits? Because, truly,
that line of questionning is still considered acceptable amongst the
real men you seem to have a yearning for. They do exist you know, in
countless beerhalls and hockey rinks. Ye ole' days? Again, you dont
know anything about them: you are too young. Lest you forget: Thatcher
was a conservative, a downright nasty conservative. She didn't bother
with the "compassionate" bit.

> Now that's what i'd call equality.

Some being more equal than others?

> 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.

Compassionate conservatism? I certainly see the mindless conservatism
yes.. of compassion, however, I see little. Miriam, what I see here is
mostly anger and irrational babbling. You know, if you dont get the
equal and pleasant social intercourse you crave for, perhaps it has
something to do with your appalingly misinformed point of view?

I would also like to know where you get evidence that the American
"Founding Fathers" were gentlemanly people. They were slave owners and
corrupt elitists. Read Howard Zinn for evidence.. In fact, read
anything that has something else than invective and rage in it. You may
gain something. And take note: Ayn Rand is kidlit, Camille Paglia is
silent in regret and Ann Coulter is waiting for you for tea and
crumpets.

Miriam, thank liberalism. Deeply. Without it, you wouldn't be here
ranting about it. I also find it puzzling that you would be considered
for Doctoral studies anywhere; not because of the ideas you defend, but
because you defend them with such mendacity of spirit, with the usual
cocktail of crass ignorance, religious zeal and anachronic stubbornness
we have come to expect from neocons articulate enough to put a sentence
of more than three words together. You have a serious bit of growing up
to do.

Thank you.



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