POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION: Chauvanist Dem Pigs attack Female Nominee with Litmus Test. SHAME ON DEMOCRATS.
Fox Americana
meanspirited smear campaign, against yet another abundantly
qualified judicial nominee. This time a very qualified woman.
How disgusting. How meanspirited.
How typical.
-
Spa...@dana.com
like a right wing scumbag:
>Once again, hate-filled leftwing Dems have begun another
>meanspirited smear campaign, against yet another abundantly
>qualified judicial nominee. This time a very qualified woman.
"Qualified" to do what?
Her "judicial activism" was clearly brought out. (reading into
legislation something that isn't there)
She's anti-consumer, anti-women's rights, anti-labor.
That isn't what America needs
Isn't a bunch of rightwing fascist sitting on the USSC enough?
*******************************************************
Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore wrote:
> Why, am I cutting to the bone of your hate toward me? I'm no better than
> you, loser. I just may have planned for a better life than you. No moral
> relative comparison. Just an alternative lifestyle than the vulgar
> expressions in your filthy world.
> There are niggers in this world. I'd go further and say their evil. The only
> way out of Niggerdom is to repent, stop the vulgarity and accept Christ as
> your Savior.
Ronn
be a CAUSAL factor when it comes to violence, assault, domestic
violence, sexual assault, robbery, child abuse, drugs, teenage
pregnancies, poverty, poor educational standards, prostitution,
paedophilia, harassment, bad manners, traffic congestion, pollution,
terrorism, vandalism, burglary, murder, teenage delinquency, road
rage, alcoholism, other addictions, hooliganism, depression, gender
conflict, hysteria, the judicial punishment of innocent individuals,
the growing prison population, family breakdown, the corruption of the
justice system and the democratic process, the corrosion of academic
integrity, the degradation of the social sciences and the law, poor
public services, the impoverishment of pensioners, hostile rap music,
and the terrible shock now being experienced by thousands of women who
are discovering that they are too old to have children.
Ronn
Elizabeth Nickson
The National Post
What kind of work would someone with a degree in Women's Studies look
for? Would you hire a woman with a degree in Women's Studies? What
would they bring to the table? This is a puzzlement to me because we
do turn out such young women, from a score of such departments in
Canada, and have been doing so for 30 years. So what are they learning
anyway?
Luckily, last week, the Independent Women's Forum in Washington, D.C.,
published Lying in a Room of One's Own, How Women's Studies Miseducate
Students. The report, by Christine Stolba, analyzes the standard,
commonly used texts of this quasi-discipline, and, what is even more
valuable, fact-checks those texts. If someone from Women's Studies
turns up at your personnel department, this is what they have been
learning:
"Internalized oppression" haunts the female of the species, who were
trained by "mothers who themselves were bent to the yoke as we are
meant to be." The system is "rigged against women," who must practise
"compulsory heterosexuality." "Heterosexuality is maintained by social
control" and a "culture of romance." "We are all members of a
subordinated group who are victims of a false consciousness." Our
culture has "institutionalized practices that presume that women are
innately sexually oriented towards men."
"Hidden away in many of those suburban homes of the 1950s, were
drinking problems, bickering spouses and bored wives." "Women who take
traditional gender norms at face value and become full-time mothers
and homemakers are rewarded by being the most economically and
psychologically vulnerable of all women."
"The modern form of the family leads women to be economically and
emotionally dependent on men and, as a result, the traditional family
is a source of social conflict and a haven only for men."
"An even more perfected form of slavery was one in which the slaves
were unaware of their condition, unaware that they were controlled,
believing instead that they had freely chosen their life and
situation. The control of women by patriarchy is effected in just such
a way."
Had enough? Luckily, the Patriarchy released its own study this Monday
in the guise of the Strategic Counsel, which used actual statistical
analysis. It is called Canadian Attitudes on the Family. The
unconscious enslavement thing must be working quite well. Canadians,
men and women, 80% of them, consider maintaining a stable marriage as
their top priority, and 76% consider being good parents as the second.
Work? Way down on the list.
Eighty-eight per cent say that having children was the best thing that
ever happened to them. Seventy-six per cent say that they'd rather one
parent be able to stay at home with their children. An equal number
say that both parents work because they have to, not because they want
to. Eighty-two per cent say that taxes should be reduced so that one
parent can stay home.
Most desired family size? Growing. Edging towards four. Yes, four.
Double the number that Gallup found in 1994.
The younger the respondent, the more likely he or she was to disagree
with divorce as a solution to family problems.
Seventy-eight per cent believe that "the importance of family life is
undervalued in Canadian society today" and 83% agree that encouraging
strong families should be a top priority of governments in Canada."
Well. Two entirely different pictures have emerged. Now I know many
people who cherish their families, but almost no one who subscribes to
the intellectual blather we pay universities to teach young women.
But after all, why care? Kids will be kids. They need to rebel, be
taught bunk and learn how to think for themselves. They need to worry
about "compulsory heterosexuality" and play silly buggers with the
police in Calgary because making mistakes is how they grow.
Yes and no. Feminism has a much more malign intent, and it's not just
greater and more pervasive government intrusion into private life,
though certainly they want that, as long as they form part of the
government. Law professor Catherine MacKinnon frankly argues against
free speech, because in a society pervaded by "gender inequality,"
so-called free speech simply disguises and ratifies the dominance of
powerful men over victimized women. In fact, rational thought and
individual responsibility are called into question. "False
consciousness" must be jettisoned in favour of "group consciousness."
OK, so that's not really all right, is it? This strikes at the very
heart of democracy. And as it becomes clearer, every day, democracy is
not a given. It needs to be cherished, protected, and actively
transmitted from generation to generation.
In Canada, newly fledged feminists have the Charter Challenge. Let me
quote from the recent issue of Herizons, Canada's leading feminist
journal: "the success of pending Charter claims for 'economic and
social rights' -- rights to adequate food, shelter and health care,
for example -- will tell us a lot about whether the Charter is really
something to be cheered. The Court Challenges Program stands to be an
even more valuable resource in that fight if it is expanded to cover
challenges to discriminatory provincial laws, as well as federal
ones."
Let me make clear that what the Charter Challenge ladies want is the
right for anyone, anyone at all, to be fully financially supported by
the government. And the rest of us, no doubt enslaved, in order to pay
for that support.
Oh, don't let me forget. University of Michigan Law Professor Marilyn
Frye, a professor of Women's Studies at Michigan State University,
says the "key mechanism of the global phenomenon of male domination,
oppression, and exploitation of females is near-universal female
heterosexuality."
It was Aristotle who said women did not have the capacity for rational
thought, but it seems that Women's Studies professors are insisting
that prejudice be re-enshrined in law.
Ronn
Transforming Society
Antonia Feitz
Speech delivered at the Inverell Forum 2000, 2/3/00
1. The Problem
Ladies and gentlemen, my topic is feminism and some of you may be
wondering why, given our country's parlous state. Our national
sovereignty is being destroyed by the the over-riding of our domestic
laws and the signing of UN treaties - with no consultation and with no
public or even parliamentary debate.
So why feminism? Because feminists are at the vanguard of the phalanx
of fools, the useful idiots, the ideologues, who are destroying our
hard won rights and our national sovereignty.
We live in an age of ideology. God has been pronounced dead, and
Chesterton's witticism has proven true: when people no longer believe
in God, they'll believe in anything. And the post-Christian people of
the West are proof, holding beliefs which their grandparents would
have dismissed as absolute nonsense, and contrary to all common sense
let alone morality.
Take extreme environmentalists. Apart from literally worshiping trees,
they exalt the welfare of frogs and even insects over that of people.
Believe it or not, there's even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[1]. Homosexuals demand their relationships be accorded equal status
with marriage, including the 'right' to adopt children. And under the
banner of multiculturalism, Australian children are either kept
ignorant, or taught to be ashamed of their own heritage and history,
while simultaneously being taught to value ethnic and especially
indigenous cultures.
But arguably, feminism is the most pernicious of the ideologies that
plague us, simply because the relationship between men and women
affects all of us.
I must stress that modern feminists are not the heirs of the
suffragettes who fought for equal rights such as the right to vote and
property rights. Modern feminists are not seeking equal rights for
women. They want to transform society, and that's no conspiracy theory
because they freely admit it.
Take CEDAW. It's the acronym for the Convention on the Elimination of
all Forms of Discrimination against Women. (You can discriminate
against men till the cows come home). This convention's goals are not
reformist, but revolutionary. It openly calls for the elimination of
traditional sex roles, and the re-writing of text books to purge them
of alleged sexual stereotypes. The UN's call for the total disarmament
of the world's people is embedded in CEDAW's preamble.
According to the feminists who constitute the CEDAW Committee, until
nations achieve a 50-50 sexual split in everything - in occupations,
in public life, and even in the domestic sphere - they are
discriminating against women. Now that might sound far-fetched, but
article 5 of CEDAW advocates "a proper understanding of maternity as a
social function." Note the socialist bullying in the word, 'proper'.
This "proper understanding" demands that child-rearing -
universally! - should be "a fully shared responsibility ... by both
sexes." It also insists that society has an obligation to extend child
care services to "allow individuals to combine family responsibilities
with work and participation in public life."
The message to women is: you will participate in work and public life
whether you want to or not. In a now notorious interview with Betty
Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir said: "No woman should be authorised to
stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally
different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if
there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." [2]
So much for freedom of choice. These bully-girls demand "a change in
the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society
and in the family ... to achieve full equality of men and women".
Their version of equality is complete identity. It's reminiscent of
communist China in Mao's time. The communists were all feminists too.
Remember?
To achieve the goal of sexual identity, Article 10c mandates the
revision of textbooks, school programmes and teaching methods with a
view to eliminating stereotyped concepts. This must be why one of my
children's French textbooks showed Dad in an apron washing the dishes
while Mum, dressed in a chic suit and carrying a briefcase, waved
ta-ta to the baby in the high-chair. A French textbook! Textbooks in
all subjects are being used to indoctrinate children in our schools.
It's just too bad if individuals prefer the traditional roles when
they have young children - as most people actually do.
According to CEDAW's Preamble, all nations are "obliged to work
towards the modification of social and cultural patterns of INDIVIDUAL
[emphasis added] conduct in order to eliminate prejudices and
customary and all other practices which are based on ... stereotyped
roles for men and women."
These intolerant ideologues who so loudly criticise Christian
evangelists are far worse. At least religious conversion is voluntary!
But incredibly, the CEDAW Committee has instructed Libya to
re-interpret its sacred book, the Koran, in ways that are permissible
under CEDAW. The Algerian government was castigated for "using
religion as an excuse" for failure to comply with CEDAW. The Committee
has also instructed China to legalise prostitution. [3]
Whatever happened to national sovereignty? And how hypocritical is the
UN? On the one hand it supposedly values the diversity of the world's
nations and cultures. But on the other hand, with CEDAW, it demands
that the world's nations and cultures must conform to the deranged and
frequently immoral opinions of Western feminists who themselves are a
minority in their own countries.
If you think CEDAW is bad news, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW drafted
in March 1999 is even worse . If governments want to maintain any
vestige of national sovereignty, they'd better not sign it.
Previously, nations signing or ratifying international treaties could
add RUDs - reservations, understandings and declarations. These are
statements limiting or modifying the effect of the provisions of a
treaty; or of giving notice of matters of policy or principle; or of
simply clarifying matters. But true to feminist tyranny, the Optional
Protocol to CEDAW will forbid any reservations.
Feminists have been frustrated that too many countries included RUDs
when they signed CEDAW - precisely to protect their cultures,
religions and sovereignty. The Optional Protocol will forbid any such
reservations. It is an unprecedented and massive assault on national
sovereignty and if signed, will set a terrible precedent for the
signing of other treaties.
Maybe the ancestor of CEDAW - the 1946 UN Commission on the Status of
Women - had good intentions. But those good intentions have been high
jacked by CEDAW. Instead of improving the welfare and securing basic
rights for women in the poorer nations, CEDAW's main game is
transforming society in the West. The Optional Protocol will be used
by individuals and NGOs in the West to achieve radical social change
that national parliaments would never dare consider, because their
members have to face voters. It's through UN treaties such as CEDAW
and the UN Charter of Human Rights that homosexual relationships will
achieve the legal status of marriage.
The most cursory glance over the countries that have signed and
ratified CEDAW makes the whole thing a sick joke. The first three are
Albania, Algeria and Angola, hardly well-known for their equal
treatment of women. Burundi - where people regularly hack each other
to death with machetes - has signed. So has Cambodia, of the
killing-fields fame. China has signed too, even though it performs
third trimester 'abortions' - read 'infanticide' - on unwilling women.
Needless to say, Canada and Australia, both of whose governments are
heavily feminist influenced, have signed. To its eternal credit, the
US has not.
So, that's the overall picture. Now let's look at what's behind
feminism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
2. The Theory
Modern radical feminism is founded on contradictory lies. The fact
that they're lies doesn't matter, because truth is always secondary
for ideologues. The fact that they're contradictory is no source of
shame, because feminists believe that logic is just a tool of the
patriarchy to oppress women and that women have other, and superior,
ways of knowing [4].
The first lie is that men and women are interchangeable, and that
there aren't any differences between the sexes apart from anatomical
ones. In fact, feminists claim that there aren't two sexes at all but
at least five genders, which are socially constructed. They regard
heterosexual men and women as being hopelessly repressed in gender
stereotypes forced upon them by society. Their life's mission is to
liberate us from these imposed stereotypes.
To achieve the interchangeability, feminists at first tirelessly
promoted the traditional male life pattern of un-interrupted full-time
work as the norm for women. Creches and childcare were demanded to
free women from domesticity, whether they wanted to be 'freed' or not.
In Australia, groups such as the Women's Electoral Lobby fought to
change Australia's tax system from a family-friendly one to a
profoundly unjust one where a married man with a family pays virtually
the same tax as a single man. They won, and their victory clearly
shows the contempt for ordinary women that is the hallmark of
feminism.
But seeing as ignoring babies doesn't go down too well with most
mothers, feminists have changed tack. If they can't force women to be
like men, then they'll force men to be like women. The sexes MUST be
interchangeable for their gender theory to work. This is behind the
increasingly hectoring calls for men to avail themselves of the
'opportunity' of part-time work and to do more domestic work out of
'fairness'. Australian academic Ken Dempsey deplores the fact that
most of the women in his surveys on domestic work perversely fail to
see they're oppressed [5].
These academics can't even see how absurd, let alone insulting they
are to the men and women of Australia. What business of theirs is it
how couples organize their domestic life? In any case, their concern
is hypocritical: feminist high-flyers don't share the domestic chores
as they exhort the lower orders to. No, they employ household help.
They don't have part-time work either. No, they have well-paying
full-time careers [6].
The first lie was that there are no differences between the sexes. The
second and contradictory lie is that women are in fact superior to
men. Increasingly, feminists claim that maleness is some sort of
pathology, in need of a cure. And so there is a widespread
demonization of men in our culture, with disastrous effects on young
males who are made to feel ashamed of their sex and to scorn the manly
virtues. And then politicians, academics and social commentators have
the hide to express concern about male suicide rates.
Increasingly men are being regarded and treated as second class
citizens, being freely discriminated against in employment via
affirmative action programmes. Feminists contemptuously dismiss the
achievements of Western civilization as the product of 'dead white
males'. And they're doing their best to overthrow it and replace it
with their own socialist hell where every facet of life will be
regimented, even down to doing the housework. It's already happened in
one German state [7].
There are some chilling prospects in store for men if they win. For
instance the president of the Center for Advancement of Public Policy
in Washington DC, has proposed that men's fertility be controlled by
mandatory contraception beginning at puberty. Boys would be forced to
have contraceptive implants along with compulsory DNA fingerprinting.
Doctors would have to report anybody who refused the implants or
sought medical attention after trying to remove them himself [8]. This
is not sci-fi, folks, this is now.
The strategies used to demonize men are stereotyping and
disinformation, or in plain English, labelling and lies. Men are so
routinely stereotyped as 'violent' now, that the slander is rarely
challenged. And the lies keep being disseminated by governments, the
bureaucracies, the schools, the media, and even to their shame, the
churches.
Take rape. Organizing their annual "Reclaim the Night" marches,
Australian feminists claim with a straight face that one in four women
have been raped. But this is where the lies come in: 'rape' doesn't
mean the same thing for feminists as it does for the rest of us. The
feminist researcher's definition of 'rape' included women who simply
had second thoughts in the morning because they'd been drunk or stoned
at the time. As well, only a quarter of the women she regarded as
having been raped agreed that they had been raped! [9]
Yet Australian feminists continue to feed the media with this arrant
nonsense that one in four Australian women has been raped. And the
lies continue, though I'm beginning to think they originate in
stupidity more than malice. For instance, one feminist academic wrote
the following nonsense to me after I politely chided her for
slandering all men as violent.
She wrote, "The Women's Safety Survey, a national survey conducted by
the Australian Bureau of Statistics (most recently 1996) of 6,880,500
women aged 18 years and over, found that in the twelve months prior to
the study almost half a million women had ... ". Blah blah blah. I
replied saying: "This defies belief. I doubt that there ever was a
survey of "6,880,500 women aged 18 years and over. I think you
probably meant to say there was a survey of X numbers of women, from
which researchers then extrapolated those figures from ABS statistics.
A bit different."
She didn't have the grace to reply.
Domestic violence is certainly an evil, but the feminists have both
grossly overstated its occurrence and denied the facts of female
violence. For example, it is well documented that there is a high rate
of domestic violence among lesbians [10]. Yet all governments
uncritically accept the feminist propaganda that domestic violence is
simply a matter of violent males abusing helpless women and children.
Not so. There is now an abundance of research, including recent
Australian research, which shows that most abusing men are in abusing
couple relationships and that women instigate acts of violence more
frequently than men [11]. Erin Pizzey, the founder of the women's
shelter movement in England, has been saying the same for years but
has been studiously ignored by feminists and bureaucrats. Feminists
have no interest in the truth. They even deny it exists. Objective
truth, logic, standards of evidentiary proof, linear thinking are all
dismissed as the "White Male System" of rationality which is in no way
superior to other ways of knowing.
At the institutional level, feminism has been spectacularly
successful. I'd now like to look at a few specific areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
3. The Achievements
1. The sexual harassment industry
Until recently, the workplace was one of the traditional places for
making romantic attachments. But now it's a no-no, thanks to the
feminists. They've generated a climate of hysteria about any
expression of the normal sexual interest between males and females at
work. In today's workplace, male interest - not boorish behaviour -
but just interest, may be perceived as sexual 'harassment' if a woman
chooses to regard it as such.
In response to this legal minefield, feminism has generated yet
another parasitical growth industry: anti-harassment training is now
big business costing millions a year, billions in the US.
But there is an acceptance of double standards. Adult men, even in
all-male workshops, or the all-male crew of submarines, aren't allowed
to put up girlie pictures as they have traditionally done on the
grounds that it demeans women and reduces them to sex objects. But a
Kolotex hoisery ad of a naked woman perched on a bound naked man was
'fun' - because it was created by an all-woman advertising agency.
The irony in all this sexual harassment nonsense is that before all
the legal machinery was set up, women were much more independent,
psychologically speaking. Any woman worth her salt could stop a man's
unwelcome advances with a look that stopped him in his tracks from ten
feet away. Girls smooched with boys in the back row of the cinema or
at the drive-in, and they usually had the last word on 'how far to
go'. Compared with those self confident young girls, today's adult
'victims' are pathetic specimens of womanhood.
2. The Affirmative Action Rip-off In the feminist lexicon, the word,
'equality' doesn't mean equal opportunity; it means equal outcomes. So
AA bureaucracies have been established to enforce the social
engineering necessary to achieve equal outcomes.
But affirmative action has been premised on false assumptions. 1)
Firstly, the claim that that under-representation of women in certain
occupations is proof of discrimination is intellectually very shaky
and even dated. Australian academic Faye Gayle has said that " ...
universities could not, by definition, be led by the best brains since
they had not achieved a 50-50 gender balance across all
classifications ... especially in areas such as physics, chemistry and
engineering...". [12]
But she's simply wrong. There's now an embarrassment of research into
sex differences which clearly shows male and female variation in
aptitudes and interests - which doesn't mean that girls can't become
scientists. It's an indictment of intellectual life that most of this
research has been done by women as the topic is too 'hot' for men.
It's an indictment of feminism that when confronted with the evidence,
promiment feminist Gloria Steinem responded by saying such research
should be banned.
2) Secondly there's the experience of the kibbutzim. Despite
indoctrination in socialist and feminist principles from birth, and
despite the highest personal motivation, the kibbutzniks failed
utterly to achieve a 50-50 society . The third generation reverted to
the sexual division of labour along the lines found in most societies.
There were few women in trades such as carpentry and plumbing, but
they outnumbered men 9 to 1 in teaching. Even then, there were
virtually no men in pre-schools, but 40% in high schools [13].
So was it a failure for the goal of sexual equality? No. It was a
victory for common sense. Ideology gave way to reality: the
kibbutzniks changed their ideas about what equality between the sexes
means. They totally rejected the feminist idea that the sexes must be
identical.
3) A third false assumption is that all women want be in full-time
paid work. Because of feminist propaganda, most people are very
surprised to learn that the participation rate of women in full-time
work has hardly changed in thirty years. From 1966 to 1998, it rose by
just 0.4% [14]. Most mothers still opt out of the full-time workforce
during their peak child-bearing years. And it's not for lack of
childcare either. Survey after survey shows that the majority of
mothers and fathers still think that home care is best care, for
babies in particular. It's not hard to see why. Australians standards
specify one carer to every five children under two. That's not quality
care in any man's language.
With AA being based on these false assumptions, the discrimination
against men is unjustifed, particularly when men are the main
providers for their families. And who benefits from AA? Overwhelmingly
young tertiary educated women. The 50-50 workplace won't happen
without massive social engineering and massive discrimination against
men. That this is unjust is immaterial. Yes, according to feminists,
justice too is a tool of the patriarchy to oppress women.
3. The Law Speaking of justice, feminists have had enormous success in
transforming society by transforming the law. According to them, the
problem with the law is the male focus on universals, principles,
rules, distinctions, and consistency. Their goal is "to rid the law of
individual rights and transform it into a bundle of group rights."
[15]
Canada and Australia are at the vanguard of feminist jurisprudence,
and, just as in indigenous land rights, the two countries' activists
feed off each other. For example, in 1990, Canadian Supreme Court
Justice Bertha Wilson called for the transformation of the law along
feminist principles, and for the re-education of her male colleagues
in "summer schools on sexism." But Australian judges already attend
such re-education courses.
Demonstrating a blatant bias against men, Wilson on the record as
saying that, "women are ...less concerned than men with abstract
notions of justice, less preoccupied with what is 'right' and 'wrong,'
".[16]. Imagine the furore if a male Supreme Court judge spouted such
sexist rubbish. She has even castigated her fellow judges for relying
too much on the evidence of a case instead of entering 'into the skin
of the litigant and making his or her experience part of your
experience and only when you have done that, to judge.' [17]
No wonder our countries are in decline: this feminist fruitcake is a
Supreme Court judge! The law as we understand it, and the rights of
individuals which have been so hard won over centuries of struggle,
are being destroyed by feminism. Feelings and perceptions - but only
of women - are becoming more important than facts and evidence. If a
man is accused of rape, his belief that the woman consented is
dismissed, because women never tell lies according to feminist
ideology. Yet if a wife murders her sleeping husband, her belief that
she was in danger of death is accepted as self defence.
The blindfold has well and truly been ripped from Justice. She is no
longer impartial; she is a feminist with a mission to transform
society.
4. The Military Australian women have played an honourable role in the
nation's defence forces. Currently, under a Sex Discrimination Act
exemption, the ADF is allowed to limit women in combat roles. Women
mustn't be put in a position where they would be likely to engage in
hand to hand combat. This is common sense, but feminists still demand
full combat roles for women because the armed forces are just another
arena in their relentless goal to transform society. Men and women are
interchangeable and consequently every institution of society must
reflect it. The US experience should warn us not to go down this road.
In October 1994, a female US Navy Lieutenant was killed on an
approach-landing to an aircraft carrier. While the Navy publicly said
it was engine failure, privately it acknowledged it was pilot error.
The poor woman was allowed to continue training despite recording
seven crashes in combat conditions during (simulated) training. Why?
Because an admiral under political pressure announced he wanted women
in combat roles. Quickly. A male pilot would have been disqualified
well before his seventh crash [18].
Career officers who see difficulties arising from feminist demands are
silenced through a high-ranking official Committee on Women's Issues,
which has recommended that any disagreement with the 'women in combat'
policy disqualifies officers from positions of leadership. Excellent
male officers' careers have been sacrificed for expressing, even
privately, reservations about women in combat.
According to David Hackworth, one of the US's highest decorated
retired soldier, some U.S. Army infantry divisions have a
battalion-equivalent of pregnant soldiers. During Desert Shield, the
non-deployment of women soldiers was much higher than men because of
pregnancy. The different non-deployment rates for the sexes aroused no
official concern, despite it being an obvious injustice to the men who
can't shirk their duty by getting pregnant.
It's ludicrous, but there were thirty eight pregnancies on the USS
Eisenhower after the crew boarded. The Navy claimed there was no
indication that any of the pregnancies resulted from sex aboard ship.
Small comfort to the sailors' wives ashore, especially when one
couple, both married to others, videotaped themselves having sex in a
remote corner of the ship. There were also eighty pregnancies in the
UN (US) peace-keeping forces in Bosnia. Hardly surprising, given there
was mandatory integration of the sexes in sleeping quarters. The
strong objections of servicemen's wives to women in combat roles are
routinely dismissed in any discussion of the matter.
Consequently, the US army's morale is at an all-time low. Training
standards have dropped: at the once prestigious Wrest Point, men don't
have to run carrying heavy weapons anymore, because women can't do it.
A recent congressional study found 40 percent of officers and 62
percent of enlisted personnel plan to leave military service when
their time is up. More than 60 per cent of those interviewed cited
"work circumstances" as the final straw that broke their commitment to
the military. Hackworth's own informal survey of more than 3,000
serving soldiers and sailors a week confirms that "work circumstances"
is code for problems with women. He claimed a soldier now in Basic
Training told him that "five females in my platoon were so weak they
couldn't pull the charging handle back on an M-16 (rifle)."[19]
Only feminist ideologues could fail to see that the presence of women
on a battlefield weakens combat readiness. But for feminists, national
security comes second to ideological purity. The sexes must be
identical, and it look like Britain is set to jetison its military
heritage and join the Americans in having women in combat.
5. Education In education, the transformation starts with unsubtle
brainwashing in pre-schools B. Believe it or not, Australian
pre-schools have banned Cinderella and Superman.
Yes, the National Childcare Accreditation Council's handbook states
that "anything that emphasises men and women in traditional masculine
and feminine roles" is outlawed [20]. Along with Superman and
Cinderella, favourite authors like Hans Christian Anderson and CS
Lewis have also been given the boot. Staff are discouraged from
telling little boys and girls that they look handsome or pretty
respectively, and from providing 'stereotyped' toys. When the
council's General Manager was challenged about promoting views so
contrary to community standards she defended the guidelines claiming
that they were voluntary . Well yes, I suppose if a childcare centre
is happy to risk its accreditation and hence funding, it can choose to
flout the 'recommendations'. Soft totalitarianism indeed.
The propaganda continues through all levels of education. As mentioned
previously, school textbooks have all been vetted for gender
stereotypes in all subjects. In the US, high school history textbooks
have been re-written to give women an importance they simply didn't
have in pre-contraceptive ages. In one popular science text, a 19th
century astronomer called Maria Mitchell who discovered a comet gets
more space than Albert Einstein [21].
And we all know, the university is the feminist's natural habitat.
Feminism wouldn't have survived outside academia. In too many of them,
what were once academic disciplines - such as history and literature -
have been transformed into courses which 'deconstruct' history and
literature for 'evidence' of oppression of women and minorities.
6. Religion Showing good reasons for their increasing irrelevance,
many Christian churches have succumbed to feminist demands. Some, such
as the Uniting Church have fallen into line and dispensed with
traditional beliefs, even accepting homosexual ministers. The ones who
have retained traditional beliefs - orthodox Catholics and the
so-called fundamentalist Christians - are loathed by feminists,
precisely because they are the last institutions in society to resist
the idea that the sexes are interchangeable. As such they are under
unrelenting pressure and hostility.
This is the reason the ordination of women is so bitterly fought.
Reasonable people would think if women want to be ordained, the
sensible thing to do would be to leave the traditional churches for
more congenial spiritual pastures. That the dissenters don't do so
clearly shows they have no respect either for their own churches or
for the diversity they profess to cherish, and that their real intent
is to transform the churches according to feminist ideology.
That's not speculation either, they brag about it. At a 1993
conference in Minneapolis, delegates from 27 countries, sponsored by
mainstream Christian churches and groups, even orders of Catholic
nuns, claimed they were "signalling the dawn of the Second Reformation
in a way "Luther or Calvin couldn't imagine" [22]. Addressing the
conference, a bishop said the churches must free themselves from "the
grip of sexism, racism, and classism." The faithful who financed the
delegates might have been more appreciative had the bishop condemned
sin and encouraged the practice of virtue.
At this Christian conference there was lots of drumming,
scribble-writing, Hawaiian chants, Zulu songs, along with
belly-dancing and the theology of darkness, the goddess, creation
spirituality, midlife transitions and dreamwork.
Only in America? Sadly not. At the Sophia centre for women's
spirituality at the Dominican convent at Cabra in South Australia, the
Sisters have recognised the injustices in the world arising from the
oppression of women. So instead of rolling up their sleeves and
nursing the sick and teaching the children of the poor, they're now
commited to "work towards the transformation of the consciousness and
structures in our society, especially within the Church's sphere of
action" [23]
Their inaguaral biennial conference in 1992 gives the flavour. In the
keynote address, Sr Elaine Wainwright spoke of the superiority of
feminine traits; the destructive elements in the patriarchal system;
the need to de-construct, re-interpret, and reconstruct Scripture; the
need to rid the world of androcentric bias and replace it with "the
weaver woman goddess Wisdom in one of her many manifestations which
included Isis, Lilith, Sophia and even Jesus/Christa." [24]
Also at the conference was a self-professed witch called Spider
Redgold. She was facilitator for a workshop called: "The Mother of all
Religions: can Christianity acknowledge the Goddess?" The Sophia
centre claims to be Christian, but the word 'Sophia' is no longer is
the personification of wisdom, but a name of the Goddess. The sisters'
Outreach programme is spreading the feminist word and has reached a
TAFE course, community centres, a girls' college, school staffs, the
University of Adelaide and they've even linked with the Office of
Women's Adviser to the Premier.
7. Language George Orwell knew that those who control the language
control the debate, and changing our language was one of the first and
major successes of feminism. We let it happen because we thought it
was too silly to be taken seriously, but they've had the last laugh.
The average Australian who is outside of academia and the
bureaucracies would be shocked at the level of linguistic intimidation
in this country.
Chapter 8 of the Australian government's Style Manual is titled
"Non-sexist Language". It uncritically accepts the feminist assertion
that Standard English is sexist, even though as recently as thirty
years ago feminists themselves used Standard English.
Nevertheless Femspeak is winning among the elites. They've managed to
ban generic 'man' along with any words with 'man' as a prefix or
suffix. There is a three page list of offensive man-words. I'm not
joking.
You can't man the pumps, the desk or the phones any more. The man in
the street is now the average citizen. The faith of our fathers and
the brotherhood of man get the chop. You can't master a language or a
musical instrument any more. Cleaning ladies and housewives are out.
The sentence, "A Brunswick mother of four has been appointed to the
board" is deemed offensive because it mentions the M word. It says a
lot about feminism that to mention the word 'mother' is seen as
offensive and demeaning to woman. Brave New World indeed.
Language does change over time, but so-called inclusive language is
not an organic change to the English language, but rather an
ideological assault relying on very shonky scholarship. It thrives
only in academia, government bureaucracies, the ABC and religious
orders. That list says it all - there's your classic herd of
independent minds!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Finale
To sum up, I'd like to read a quote from Kenneth Minogue who was
professor of political science at the London School of Economics. He
wrote: "An ideological movement is a collection of people many of whom
could hardly bake a cake, fix a car, sustain a friendship or a
marriage, or even do a quadratic equation, yet they believe they know
how to rule the world."[25]
Too many people who call themselves feminists are uncritical ,
accepting the ideology because it - like all the others - provides a
convenient crutch in life and does away with the need for personal
responsibility. Interestingly, the more intelligent ones have tended
to re-think their views as they've grown older. Unfortunately,
feminists have already done much damage to individuals, to families
and to the institutions of society. And as I showed at the beginning,
they are the useful idiots who are undermining our national
sovereignty.
Thank you.
************
1. www.vhemt.org 2. Quoted in Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards
Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, New York : Regan
Books, 1997, p. 204. 3. Kathryn Balmforth, "The Optional Protocol to
CEDAW: an Open Invitation to Radical Attacks on Sovereignty",
Endeavour Forum Newsletter, no. 96, October 1999, p.2. 4. Christina
Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, New
York: Touchstone, 1995, chapter 4. 5. Dempsey, Inequalities in
Marriage: Australia and Beyond, Melbourne : Oxford University Press,
1997, p.11 6. The Weekend Australian , 3-4/7/99. 7. Sun-Herald
(Sydney), 30/5/99 8.
http://members.tripod.com/~adviser1/medusa/ch07.html 9. Hoff Sommers,
p.211 10. Ibid, p.199 11. Karen Brownlee, "Men Can be Victims of
Domestic Violence as Well", Regina Leader Post and Saskatoon Star
Phoenix, 22 October 1999 12. The Australian HES, 8/6/97. 13. Robert
Pool, The New Sexual Revolution, London : Stodder and Houghton, 1994,
p. 267. 14. Bettina Arndt, "Jobs For the Girls", Melbourne, The Age,
21/4/98. 15. Shirley Robin Letwin, "Law and the Unreasonable Woman",
National Review, November 18, 1991, p. 35. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18.
Bork, p. 219-220. 19. David H. Hackworth, "Why the troops are hanging
it up", 15/11/99 20. (Sydney) Sun-Herald, 18/5/97. 21. Hoff Sommers,
p.58 22. Kathy Kersten, "A New Heaven & a New Earth", First Things,
March 1994, p.10. 23. Margaret E. Mills, Woman: Why Are You Weeping,
North Melbourne: News Weekly, 1997, p.106 24. Ibid, p.108 25. Kenneth
Minogue, "The Goddess That Failed", National Review, 18/11/91, p. 46.
JustTheFacts
"Ronn" <ro...@gamebox.net> wrote in message
news:3d442...@binaries.vphos.net...
> hither and thither - and with STRONG evidence - FEMINISM is shown to
> be a CAUSAL factor
What data do you have to back up your libel?
Ronn
as you try to sleep.
The UN and CEDAW.
Transforming Society
Antonia Feitz
http://www.angryharry.com/index.html
Harrison X. Numbugger
and associate with conservative republicans as often possible.
Phil MacRackin
>
> The Real Goal Of Feminism
>
> Transforming Society
>
> Antonia Feitz
>
> Speech delivered at the Inverell Forum 2000, 2/3/00
>
> 1. The Problem
Looks like someone here got laughed at during an intimate moment. I've
been getting alot of commercial e-mail promising to add 3 inches to my
penis. I don't need it but I'll happily forward it to you
Scott Erb
> The Real Goal Of Feminism
> Or just more Shit that is going on
> as you try to sleep.
> The UN and CEDAW.
Actually, the "shit" is this article, which is idiotic.
> Transforming Society
> Antonia Feitz
> http://www.angryharry.com/index.html
> Speech delivered at the Inverell Forum 2000, 2/3/00
>
> 1. The Problem
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, my topic is feminism and some of you may be
> wondering why, given our country's parlous state. Our national
> sovereignty is being destroyed by the the over-riding of our domestic
> laws and the signing of UN treaties - with no consultation and with no
> public or even parliamentary debate.
Nothing being done with the UN destroys our sovereignty. The lies being
told about the ICC is part of a propaganda/lie campaign being told by a
group who simply want an issue to arouse emotions of those who don't
understand international relations and are prone to fear and paranoia.
> So why feminism? Because feminists are at the vanguard of the phalanx
> of fools, the useful idiots, the ideologues, who are destroying our
> hard won rights and our national sovereignty.
Most feminists simply want women and men to be seen as equal partners, and
point to centuries of discrimination and oppression as obstacles that have
created cultural distortions that are, thankfully, being slowly removed
because much of what was radical in the past has now become mainstream.
Reactionaries like the author of the article you post are on the losing end
of history.
> We live in an age of ideology. God has been pronounced dead, and
> Chesterton's witticism has proven true: when people no longer believe
> in God, they'll believe in anything.
And which "god" is that? The author now is going off on some weird
religious tirade.
The rest of the long verbose article is a mix of lies, distortions and in
cases where an actual event is used, trying to 'cherry pick' bad examples
and put them forth as the norm.
*FLUSH*
Scott Erb
> hither and thither - and with STRONG evidence - FEMINISM is shown to
> be a CAUSAL factor when it comes to violence,
Hardly. Feminism looks to alternatives in social theory to the kind of
violence and oppression that society has fostered for centuries.
-scott
Note this comparison of "traditional realist" international relations
theory, and feminist international relations theory:
The first is from Hans Morgenthaus's "Politics Among Nations," a classic,
and another is from Joann Ticker's critique:
Hans Morgenthau: Rules of Political Realism
1. Politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that
have their roots in human nature, which is unchanging: therefore it is
possible to develop a rational theory that reflects these objective laws.
2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest
defined in terms of power which infuses rational order into the subject
matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics
possible. Political realism stresses the rational, objective and
unemotional.
3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is an objective category
which is universally valid but not with a meaning that is fixed once and for
all. Power is the control of man over man.
4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political
action. It is also aware of the tension between the moral command and the
requirements of success political action.
5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a
particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. It is the
concept of interest defined as power that saves us from moral excess and
political folly.
6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere; he
asks 'How does this policy affect the power of the nation?" Political
realism is based o na pluralistic conception of human nature. A man who was
nothing but 'political man' would be a beast, for he would be completely
lacking in moral restraints. But, in order to develop an autonomous theory
of political behavior 'political man' must be abstracted from other aspects
of human nature.
Joann Tickner: A Feminist Alternative set of rules
1. A feminist perspective believes that objectivity, as it is culturally
defined, is associated with masculinity. Therefore, supposedly 'objective'
laws of human nature are based on a partial , masculine view of human
nature. Human nature is both masculine and feminine; it contains elements of
social reproduction and development as well as political domination. Dynamic
objectivity offers us a more connected view of objectivity with less
potential for domination.
2. A feminist perspective believes that the national interest is
multidimensional and contextually contingent. Therefore, it cannot be
defined solely in terms of power. In the contemporary world the national
interest demands cooperative rather than zero sum solution to a set of
interdependent global problems which include nuclear war, economic
well-being and environmental degradation.
3. Power cannot be infused with meaning that is universally valid. Power as
domination and control privileges masculinity and ignores the possibility of
collective empowerment, another aspect of power often associated with
femininity.
4. A feminist perspective rejects the possibility of separating moral
command from political action. All political action has moral significance.
The realist agenda for maximizing order through power and control gives
priority to the moral command of order over those of justice and the
satisfaction of basic needs necessary to ensure social reproduction.
5. While recognizing that the morel aspirations of particular nations cannot
be equated with universal morel principles, a feminist perspective seeks to
find common moral elements in human aspirations which could become the basis
for de-escalating international conflict and building international
community.
6. A feminist perspective denies the autonomy of the political. Since
autonomy is associated with masculinity in Western culture, disciplinary
efforts to construct a world view which dies not rest on a pluralistic
conception of human nature are partial and masculine. Building boundaries
around a narrowly defined political realm defines political in a way that
excludes the concerns and contributions of women.
JimL
Spa...@Dana.com wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2002 10:17:55 -0700, ner...@aol.com (Fox Americana) wrote
> like a right wing scumbag:
>
> >Once again, hate-filled leftwing Dems have begun another
> >meanspirited smear campaign, against yet another abundantly
> >qualified judicial nominee. This time a very qualified woman.
>
> "Qualified" to do what?
>
> Her "judicial activism" was clearly brought out. (reading into
> legislation something that isn't there)
>
> She's anti-consumer, anti-women's rights, anti-labor.
Maybe she's also anti-banana which is really why you don't like her.
Jim
mommadona
"JimL" <ji...@puzzle.com> wrote in message
news:3D459A9A...@puzzle.com...