PLEASE IGNORE PREVIOUS POST Re: Cyberfeminism - in reply to Myriam's post

Subject: PLEASE IGNORE PREVIOUS POST Re: Cyberfeminism - in reply to Myriam's post
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) (
Date: Sun Jan 16 2005 - 22:49:49 EST

sh*t sorry everyone

that was supposed to be private

reply-to munge

still, the comment stands, and thanks, Kris.


miriam clinton (iriXx) wrote:

> thanks mate - i've had a sucky day.
> dont know if you know i have epilepsy on top of the bipolar... at
> least both meds do the same job, but it sucks.
> anyhow, he's the one thats ignorant,
> and im thankful for your support on-list...
> mC~
> K. Weston wrote:
>> OI!
>> piche off and leave my mate alone...
>> even if she has got funny ideas
>> so what ?
>> i find it puzzling why you have posted this
>> and im pretty annoyed... :-\
>> you a naughty man..
>> are you this frank when you talk to people normally?
>> i bet yo a hit at partys....
>> are you one of those who interject at every sentence....
>> yeah prolly...
>> do you walk in and pick everyone apart ?
>> chill out you great big girls blouse...
>> __
>> kwis
>> ))
>> ((
>> c[_] scuse the epenthesis
>> *****************************
>> On 16 Jan 2005, at 18:17, Jean Pich wrote:
>> 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 t 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.

99% of aliens prefer Earth

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005

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