Barbara Amero's First Wife Club
Per
If you have been reading the thread called, "Re: A chilly climate for
WHOM?" you have been treated to the vitriolic outpourings of one Barbara
Amero. (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca). Among the things she has said:
>Sure there's some fellas out there who do some good ... BUT overall MEN
>have fucked things up and will continue to do so ... from my point of
>view men should make the lemmings..."a moderate genocide to later save
>a falling race"!!
[and this]
>Fars I can see most men are bad fathers, bad mothers!
>Like I said before I really don't think they are useful to us anymore!
[and this]
>Are you suggesting that men shouldn't be gettin' a shit-kickin'???
>I think revenge is warranted .... but not necessarily the issue ...
>you fellas jest plain DESERVE a shit-kickin'!!!
>Again for all the shit women have taken and still take, they are NO where
>near as hostile as MANY men!!!!! And the fellas jest don't seem ta have
>the stamina women had/have to cope with the shit-kickin'!
>I think it would be nice if the fellas would jest quietly retire to the
>parlour!
If you wade through this sort of thing long enough, you will find the
source of Ms. Amero's towering rage against all men. She was married, and it
didnt' work out.
Ms. Amero tells us that she helped put her husband through school, and
when they got divorced, she found herself suffering financially.
Despite all of Ms. Amero's anti-male hatred, I almost felt sorry for
her when I read her hard-luck stories.
Almost.
But then I remembered that she is a feminist, and feminism is about
equality. And I would NOT feel all that sorry for a man who was in the same
position.
The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his
career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't be
sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those labors for
the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a chiseler.
And if it had worked out for her, I suspect she would be just another
smug, upper-class suburban housewife waving her diamond rings under the nose
of the garbageMEN as she orders them to set the ash cans down softly so they
won't disturb her rest.
She obviously expect a big financial payoff from marriage, and that
payoff was very important to her. If a man married hoping to hit paydirt and
it backfired, I don't think I'd feel much sympathy for him. I treat her
equally in this regard.
Here is some of the things she expected:
>... he clearly stated that I had nothing to worry about
>... that I would be taken care of ... full prof, tenure, excellent salary
>which would increase (hard worker, well published, merit pay); house
>mortgage life insured; his hefty life insurance; his impending inheritance,
>and so on.... BUT I WAS STUPIT ... FERGOT TO ASK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I
>SHOULD L E A V E !!!!
She has a laundry list of money, money, money, that she hoped to get,
not through her own labors. (She even had an eye on his inheritance. Hmmm?
Did that play a part in her decision to marry him?)
And here is the kicker: Ms. Amero was not dumped. SHE left HIM. She
walked out, apparently expecting to continue living the good life. She is
absolutely *enraged* at all men because her cushy plans did not work out.
She also said that she had a chance to go to college herself during
the marriage. She told of taking Women's Studies courses. Well, if she had
studied something that might have given her usable skills, she might now be
earning a better wage. Instead, it was her *choice* to take Women's Studies
courses, and now she is absolutely enraged at all the male race because that
course of study hasn't paid off very well.
Ms. Amero's case would be just another soap-opera if it didn't tell us
so much about the way that feminists think. Ms. Amero unwittingly reveals an
awful lot about feminist ethos.
Ms. Amero is revealing a pathological inability to *take
responsibility for her own actions.*
*She* decided on a course of marrying a man as a meal ticket. *She*
choose to spend her college tuition on such things as Women's Studies. *She*
decided to walk out of the marriage. And now that *her own actions* have not
paid off, she virulently *hates men!* Instead of focusing the responsibility
inward, on her own choices, she throws it outward onto every man on the face
of the earth.
There have been men who have gone through similar things. I know one
guy who helped his wife through college and then *she* left. Feminists would
never tolerate that man turning into a woman-hater, but Ms. Amero is in no
danger of winding up on any list of women regarded as "not real feminists."
Ms. Amero has expressed a towering outrage over the INDIGNITY that she
ACTUALLY HAS TO WORK FOR A LIVING!
Well, Ms. Amero, welcome to the club.
And please ... try to take it like a man.
ploot
Damn good post, Per. That was such an excellent post.
In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head. Women are so irresponsible for
their own choices and behavior, they represent a genuine threat to the
future of our children. I think one of the biggest challenges facing men is
to rescue children from the clutches of selfish, mean-spirited, irresponsible,
violent women. As bad as we men have it, imagine how bad children have
it. Women are poisoning the minds of children and damaging their bodies
at the least rageful impulse. We have to rescue the children from the
destructive clutches of women.
PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) wrote:
: If you have been reading the thread called, "Re: A chilly climate for
Barbara Amero
ploot wrote:
: Damn good post, Per. That was such an excellent post.
Yes I thought so too. And I am flattered that Per would take that much
time and effort to start a thread in my dishonour ... such has also
happened here in a local newsgroup. Geez! I'm gettin' as populaareeee as
Camille Paglia! HOWEVER, Per's post is only a biography ... and as with
all biographies it is his/her interpretation and not all of it is factual.
In fact, s/he made quite a few assumptions/errors ... thas always a problem
when one takes it upon oneself to define another's reality.
BUT I do think that you have hit the nail on the head ... only however if
you say *some* women. Not ALL women are irresponsible for their own
choices and behavior. AND I agree that children need to be rescued ...
BUT certainly NOT from the frying pan into the fire!! ... the fire you
suggest!
AND some feminists do not seem to want to accept that Woman the Nurturer
is a Patriarchal Myth .... in fact it is a myth perpetuated by feminism
...they seem to prefer a shroud of silence covering the reality of women's
complicity in this abusive, violent society. Whose interests are served?
I agree with bell hooks who says that women can and do participate in
politics of domination, as perpetrators as well as victims -- that we
dominate, that we are dominated -- that we must emphasize paradigms of
domination that call attention to woman' capacity to dominate that will
enable us to examine our role as women in the perpetuation and maintenance
of systems of domination.
AND I agree with Firestone that biological reproduction is neither in
women's best interest nor in those of the children so reproduced ...
if technology can eliminate the role of woman-the-producer, it can
eliminate the role of man-the-producer ... BUT tis men in power ... "the
replacement of women's childbearing capacity by male-controlled technology
would remove women's biological burden, BUT it would also leave women
without a product with which to bargain." AND I agree with Firestone that
"biological motherhood is the root of further evils, especially the vice
of possessiveness that generates feelings of hostilty and jealousy among
human beings ... the vice of possessiveness--the favouring of one child over
another on account of its being the product of one's own ovum or sperm--is
precisely what must be overcome if we are to put an end to divisive
hierarchies." Children reproduced exutero could be up fer grabs ... only
those caring, nurturing women or men who truly like children and wish to
parent would do so!
OR another possible solution is for women to bear children when they are
young and for children to be brought up in nurseries with qualified,
competent care-givers who want to perform this function ... with child-
bearing out of the way at an early age, women are then free to pursue
other interests with men as their equals.
FINALLY the writer is truly in a delusional state if s/he thinks that
children should be rescued and put in the hands of "selfish, mean-spirited,
irresponsible, violent men!
AND how many men want their kids ... the situation here does not seem
that many want them enough to pay child support! or even visit them! Even
when they live with their children, many do not visit with them, they are
too bizzy ... after the almighty dollar ... some workin' at demeaning jobs,
some seeking fame and fortune or just fame/immortality!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)
{o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
She eats, has a house, has entertainment....what else is there....
------------------------------------------ "DukeNukem" (aka Joseph Glynn)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Zenoink
In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
>
Sounds to me like you guys can dish it out, but ya just can't take it
when it's thrown back in your faces! Surprise!
I come from an area where sexism isn't half as rampant as it is in this
newsgroup. I didn't even intend to see the First Wives Club since I
didn't find the divorced wife's revenge theme very funny.
However, I have noticed the absolute panic of a lot of sexist men over
this movie and their efforts to boycott it (got caught using the names
of groups they didn't have authorization from, too!)
I have, therefore, decided to go see this flick just to be on the good
side of matters. A line in the sand, so to speak.
Kay
Mark Evans
Per (PerAd...@gnn.com) wrote:
: If you have been reading the thread called, "Re: A chilly climate for
: Amero. (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca). Among the things she has said:
And their nice postmaster who forwards complaints to them so they can
send abusive email back. I don't have much truck with with "cowboy"
operators.
: Ms. Amero is revealing a pathological inability to *take
: responsibility for her own actions.*
: *She* decided on a course of marrying a man as a meal ticket. *She*
: choose to spend her college tuition on such things as Women's Studies. *She*
: decided to walk out of the marriage. And now that *her own actions* have not
: paid off, she virulently *hates men!* Instead of focusing the responsibility
: inward, on her own choices, she throws it outward onto every man on the face
: of the earth.
: There have been men who have gone through similar things. I know one
: guy who helped his wife through college and then *she* left. Feminists would
: never tolerate that man turning into a woman-hater, but Ms. Amero is in no
: danger of winding up on any list of women regarded as "not real feminists."
: Ms. Amero has expressed a towering outrage over the INDIGNITY that she
: ACTUALLY HAS TO WORK FOR A LIVING!
: Well, Ms. Amero, welcome to the club.
: And please ... try to take it like a man.
Maybe you will learn something, like all the sort of stuff men have to put
up with...
Steven Malcolm Anderson
<snipped>
> The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his
>career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't
be
>sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
>supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those
labors for
>the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a
chiseler.
Exactly. _I_ tolerate _no_ double standards.
> Ms. Amero has expressed a towering outrage over the INDIGNITY
that she
>ACTUALLY HAS TO WORK FOR A LIVING!
Oh, golly! How -- awful! (Two four-letter words that some people
dread: "work" and "earn".)
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
Stuart Birks
zen...@ix.netcom.com(Zenoink) wrote:
>However, I have noticed the absolute panic of a lot of sexist men over
>this movie and their efforts to boycott it (got caught using the names
>of groups they didn't have authorization from, too!)
>I have, therefore, decided to go see this flick just to be on the good
>side of matters. A line in the sand, so to speak.
I thought it was a picket, not a boycott. From what I read they WANT
people to see it.
Enjoy the film.
Stuart
Zenoink
In <53v5c3$b...@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz> Stuart Birks
Well, actually, that's what they said--figured if it was such a hit
they'd get more publicity--but they seem to have kinda flopped--unlike
the movie.
Kay
Barbara Amero
Zenoink (zen...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Sounds to me like you guys can dish it out, but ya just can't take it
: when it's thrown back in your faces! Surprise!
You got it! And I'm certainly not surprised that the fellas can't take it!
Some local yokels down this way started dishin' it out ta me and when I
dished it right back ... Whoa! did they get some cranky ... check it out
in my Profile under 'babs cybergossip' ... mosta them are pretty quiet
now.
AND ... Can ya picture a man tryin' ta give birth?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)
{o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
She eats, has a house, has entertainment....what else is there....
------------------------------------------ "DukeNukem" (aka Joseph Glynn)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
one of them local yokels talkin' about his wife ... tis more than ATV news
that makes me nauseous!
Barbara Amero
Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Per (PerAd...@gnn.com) wrote:
: : If you have been reading the thread called, "Re: A chilly climate for
: : Amero. (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca). Among the things she has said:
: And their nice postmaster who forwards complaints to them so they can
: send abusive email back. I don't have much truck with with "cowboy"
: operators.
AHH POO ON YOU! ... you're jest cranky Mark 'cause CCN wouldn't reprimand
me ... I didn't break any rules! And I don't have much truck with them
snotty, snooty, folk were you come from! As a fellow netizen friend would
say fuk that trukload of muk! AND some advice from him: If splatter and
gore, decaying corpses and rotting fundamentalism are too mature stuff
for you to handle, it is best to stay inside, not to open a newspaper, or
news magazine or any other such publication, not to turn on TV or radio,
especially not a computer that has a modem line connected, not to talk to
anybody (especially those that might talk back), and to close your eyes,
put fingers in your ears and make a loud humming noise. It is not
guaranteed to work but a major brain surgery will most suitably help to
keep the distracting thoughts out of your consciousness, or even a really
big wooden mallet.
snip a bunch a per's bullshit
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca)
{o o} http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
Castration fear: inevitable in a species that has knock-offable
external dangling genitalia. -Beata Bishop
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Carolyn Jean Fairman
followups restricted
Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
>: <snipped>
>: > The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his
>: >career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't
>: be
>: >sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
>: >supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those
>: labors for
>: >the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a
>: chiseler.
How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children? Can't be
men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have
nothing against demanding women do it. The Mormon Elders just demanded
women stay at home and not work outside the home. Per seems to have
forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist,
because if men are loafers for that work, so are women. If it is good
that women do it, so it is for men. To split this by sex is sexist.
And so many anti feminists are blatently and self-righteously sexist
it can make you sick.
[snip]
>Hmmm.... am I understanding you correctly ... are you saying that women
>who work as homemakers do not work for a living? Is that what you're
>saying?? Maybe Fairman who isn't nutty would like to address this issue.
>So what do you think Fairman?
Very common comment, raising children is not work. Men certainly
would stoop to being "loafers" and doing it. Certainly running a
household is just eating bon bons all day. Riight. Raising children
is very hard work, and to parent-bash like that is exceedingly rude,
thoughtless and worthy almost of cross posting to misc.kids so parents
could flame you for your mindlessness.
I do think the time where one person staying home, with no kids, is
past, and I am glad to see it go. But, of course, now we have a
dearth of volunteers, as that was very commonly work homemakers had
(but since it was not paid, it didn't 'count' and men would not do it
in anywhere near the number women do).
But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
time.
However, a word of advice. Don't male bash. Be clear you mean some
men. Men like your ex, say. Rich Payne blows this all the time, but
none of the men here care. He goes from experience with his ex and
some other women and states women as a whole are some form of bad,
evil, whatever, it varies. Per has female bashed a few times himself
and is completely of the opinion he is right and women are just like
that. Thus it is ok to female bash because you can justify it by
female bashing more and saying women are really all like that.
Amazing But True: Per On Alt.feminism.
The hypocracy is galling and can fuel anger that results in lashing
out just as immaturely as the men did, but you get nowhere that way,
or really you get as far as they do. And at as low a level. It isn't
worth it.
>AND you steven what makes you think I didn't work outside of the home?
>Is that what Per told ya?
Per seems always willing to assume things about people that fit his
woman bashing prejudices. Then if you state the truth, at least with
me, I got called niave for posting personal info on the net. Pretty
good scam, hm?
>Why don't ya have a chat with my x-husband,
>W. David Pierce, University of Alberta, Canada? He could set ya straight
>tho' I don't think he'd talk to the likes a you fellas! Or ya could jest
>read my posts ... I'm pretty sure that I wrote about working outside of
>the home ...
Oh, details. How naive of you, anyway. :-)
You also worked in the home, raising children. Barbara, if women
don't work to end this devaluing of childrearing, not only will kids
lose out, but men will continue to shirk their share of it in marriges
allowing them to continue to blothely think it isn't work. Clearly
someone has been covering their butts to the nitty gritty work of
childrearing --their wives.
But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
life) most. But you *will* alientate and drive away men who might
have well been agreable about many topics related to feminism. Always
unwise, to be rude and mean and drive away the people who might have
agreed otherwise. People like Per don't matter either way, his mind
is made up, but not being rude seems, IMHO, a generally good idea
anyway. Even to him, irritating and rude as he is.
>fessors at U of A make pretty good money but not enough ta
>pay for competitive sports fer 3 children ... especially when one of those
>sports is figure skating ... and I'm pretty sure that I mentioned running
>my own business ...
Details! :-)
>but Per's version of my life is more to yer liking
>isn't it! Gives ya an opportunity to engage in woman-bashing ... after
>all isn't that why yer in here??
Well for the love of life, don't stoop to their level! It is obvious
how many men here will reinterpret what you said and and change it,
and when caught will beg off claiming "sarcasm" and "lack of a sense
of humor in feminists". Be persistant about stopping female bashing.
Quite simply, you are in a better position the less you male bash and
the more you talk about men who do certain things, of which there are
many or some but far from all.
I didn't think you were worth talking to, because you come across as
no better than these bitter, agnry, feminists-hating woman-bashers
(note, I am not confusing feminism with women. There are femininsts
*haters* who may like some women but sure seem willing to bash all of
them) and I just thought, oh, great, a woman who is damaging the
ability of feminists to reach the men who would listen.
So stop it! Focus in reaching the men you can, pointing out the
foibles of certain types of men of which your ex is one and try to
focus your anger at changing things. I have a friend, in his 50's,
who is stopping calling women girls and really has worked on using
they as a sex neutral pronoun and seeing women are capable of things
they were denied even the opportunity to try when he was growing up.
He is also way mroe aware of gender role stereotyping and how he
likely treats girls (real ones, ie small female children) differently
from boys -- and he trying to *change* that! Male bashing would not
have brought about this effect. His going off and talking to other
men about these issues does more for feminism than trying to rebut the
blatherings one feminist-hating female-basher here.
Make yourseslf worth talking to, by building up women and praising
certain kinds of men and critiqueing others. Tossing in an occasional
comment critiquing certain kinds of women is worth it too because,
like men, women are not perfect. And you get to watch with amazement
as some men go Yeah, the bitch, women do that, while they ignore their
own sexism. Keeps me involved in feminism, let me tell ya.
Likewise, the issue of SAH Moms or SAH women, really, but also SAH
Dads. There is real value in supporting someone who can do more
because they don't need to worry about food, shelter, paying bills or
much of daya to day life. Men who do this get a *lot* of shit tossed
at them. Loafers (and we are not talking shoes here) and wusses is
the least of it. Women who do it are praised by certain religious
groups (whome certain antifeminists thing are run by women. Hah.),
but ignored when they get divorced (but blamed for wanting alimony).
Many men made it clear the risk for staying at home and raising the
children was not worth it becuase you get dumped, don't have the
skills he had while you supported him and raised the both of yours
children. No wonder they won't risk it when their sex practically
defined it being a stupid thing to do. But it can work if the couple
is up front about who is sacrificing what and why and expects what in
return. Women who stay at home, and men who do, too, are WORKING.
But in a job few in power in society value.
Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing
childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem
to want to *keep* and others) men just as upset without being, in all
honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-)
--
| Feminism-the notion (apparently radical to some) that women are people
|\O/| ===If equality is viewed as a loss, what does== Carolyn
| _ | ===that tell you about the previous situation?== Fairman
|/ \| http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~cfairman/ or /Humanists/
Sean C
In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU>, cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Carolyn Jean Fairman) wrote:
<snippo>
>
> Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing
> childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
> feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
> and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem
> to want to *keep* and others) men just as upset without being, in all
> honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-)
>
> --
> | Feminism-the notion (apparently radical to some) that women are people
> |\O/| ===If equality is viewed as a loss, what does== Carolyn
> | _ | ===that tell you about the previous situation?== Fairman
> |/ \| http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~cfairman/ or /Humanists/
If you and other feminists could but follow your own advice...
--
############################################################
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of
opinions that we loathe.
-Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call
him vile names.
-Elbert Hubbard
Marg Petersen
In article <andersonD...@netcom.com>,
Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>>
>>But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
>>like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
>>You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
>>bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
>>because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
>>totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
>>men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
>>some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
>>ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
>>are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
>>time.
>
>
>>But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
>>stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
>>life) most.
>
>of the guys you see on these ngs and in certain mailing lists are
>not representative of men in general.
>
>Thank the goddess - no, not you, Marg! :-)
>
>Jay
>
Aw gee, Jay! You mean I *haven't* had anything to do with
lots of men being nice(r)? Shucks! I guess I'll just have
to light a few more candles then. :-)
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Carolyn Jean Fairman
Ngs changed
Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
>: <snipped>
>: > The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his
>: >career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't
>: be
>: >sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
>: >supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those
>: labors for
>: >the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a
>: chiseler.
How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children? Can't be
men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have
nothing against demanding women do it. The Mormon Elders just demanded
women stay at home and not work outside the home. Per seems to have
forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist,
because if men are loafers for that work, so are women. If it is good
that women do it, so it is for men. To split this by sex is sexist.
And so many anti feminists are blatently and self-righteously sexist
it can make you sick.
[snip]
>Hmmm.... am I understanding you correctly ... are you saying that women
>who work as homemakers do not work for a living? Is that what you're
>saying?? Maybe Fairman who isn't nutty would like to address this issue.
>So what do you think Fairman?
Very common comment, raising children is not work. Men certainly
would stoop to being "loafers" and doing it. Certainly running a
household is just eating bon bons all day. Riight. Raising children
is very hard work, and to parent-bash like that is exceedingly rude,
thoughtless and worthy almost of cross posting to misc.kids so parents
could flame you for your mindlessness. To a crisp as this is often
discussed.
I do think the time where one person staying home, with no kids, is
past, and I am glad to see it go. But, of course, now we have a
dearth of volunteers, as that was very commonly work homemakers had
(but since it was not paid, it didn't 'count' and in general it seems
men would not do it in anywhere near the number women do).
But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
time.
However, a word of advice. Don't male bash. Be clear you mean some
men. Men like your ex, say. Rich Payne blows this all the time, but
none of the men here care. He goes from experience with his ex and
some other women and states women as a whole are some form of bad,
evil, whatever, it varies. Per has female bashed a few times himself
and is completely of the opinion he is right and women are just like
that. Thus it is ok to female bash because you can justify it by
female bashing more and saying women are really all like that.
Amazing But True: Per On Alt.feminism.
The hypocracy is galling and can fuel anger that results in lashing
out just as immaturely as those men did, but you get nowhere that way,
or really you get as far as they do. And at as low a level. It isn't
worth it. Repeat that as needed; it isnt worth stooping like that
yourself. :-)
>AND you steven what makes you think I didn't work outside of the home?
>Is that what Per told ya?
Per seems always willing to assume things about people that fit his
woman-bashing prejudices. Then if you state the truth, at least with
me, I got called naive for posting personal info on the net. Pretty
good scam, hm?
>Why don't ya have a chat with my x-husband,
>W. David Pierce, University of Alberta, Canada? He could set ya straight
>tho' I don't think he'd talk to the likes a you fellas! Or ya could jest
>read my posts ... I'm pretty sure that I wrote about working outside of
>the home ...
Oh, details. How naive of you, anyway. :-)
You also worked in the home, raising children. Barbara, if women
don't work to end this devaluing of childrearing, not only will kids
lose out, but many men will continue to shirk their share of it in
marriges allowing them to continue to blithely think it isn't work.
Clearly someone has been covering their butts to the nitty gritty work
of childrearing --their wives.
But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
life) most. But you *will* alienate and drive away men who might have
well been agreeable about many topics related to feminism. Always
unwise, to be rude and mean and drive away the people who might have
agreed otherwise. People like Per don't matter either way, his mind
is made up, but not being rude seems, IMHO, a generally good idea
anyway. Even to him, irritating and rude as he is.
>fessors at U of A make pretty good money but not enough ta
>pay for competitive sports fer 3 children ... especially when one of those
>sports is figure skating ... and I'm pretty sure that I mentioned running
>my own business ...
Details! :-)
>but Per's version of my life is more to yer liking
>isn't it! Gives ya an opportunity to engage in woman-bashing ... after
>all isn't that why yer in here??
Well for the love of life, don't stoop to their level! It is obvious
how many men here will reinterpret what you said and and change it,
and when caught will beg off claiming "sarcasm" and "lack of a sense
of humor in feminists". Be persistant about stopping female bashing.
Quite simply, you are in a better position the less you male bash and
the more you talk about men who do certain things, of which there are
many or some but far from all.
I didn't think you were worth talking to, because you come across as
no better than these bitter, angry, feminists-hating woman-bashers
(note, I am not confusing feminism with women. There are femininsts
*haters* who may like some women but sure seem willing to bash all of
them anyway) and I just thought, oh, great, a woman who is damaging
the ability of feminists to reach the men who would listen.
So stop it! Focus in reaching the men you can, pointing out the
foibles of certain types of men of which your ex is one and try to
focus your anger at changing things. I have a friend, in his 50's,
who is stopping calling women girls and really has worked on using
they as a sex neutral pronoun and seeing women are capable of things
they were denied even the opportunity to try when he was growing up.
He is also way more aware of gender role stereotyping and how he
likely treats girls (real ones, ie small female children) differently
from boys -- and he trying to *change* that! Male bashing would not
have brought about this effect. His going off and talking to other
men about these issues does more for feminism than trying to rebut the
blatherings one feminist-hating female-basher here.
Make yourseslf worth talking to, by building up women and praising
certain kinds of men and critiqueing others. Tossing in an occasional
comment critiquing certain kinds of women is worth it too because,
like men, women are not perfect. And you get to watch with amazement
as some men go Yeah, the bitch, women do that, while they ignore their
own sexism. Keeps me involved in feminism, let me tell ya.
Likewise, the issue of SAH Moms or SAH women, really, but also SAH
Dads. There is real value in supporting someone who can do more
because they don't need to worry about food, shelter, paying bills or
much of day to day life with small chillren. Men who do this get a
*lot* of shit tossed at them. I read the SAH Dads lists, and wow, the
stories of male to male man-bashing... Loafers (and we are not talking
shoes here) and wusses is the least of it. Women who do it are
praised by certain religious groups (whome certain antifeminists thing
are run by women. Hah.), but ignored when they get divorced (but
blamed for wanting alimony).
Many men made it clear the risk for staying at home and raising the
children was not worth it becuase you get dumped, don't have the
skills he had while you supported him and raised the both of yours
children. No wonder they won't risk it when their sex practically
defined it being a stupid thing to do. But it can work if the couple
is up front about who is sacrificing what and why and expects what in
return. Women who stay at home, and men who do, too, are WORKING.
But in a job few in power in society value.
Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing
childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem
to want to *keep* and other things) and get the same men here just as
Jay Anderson
In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>
>like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
>You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
>bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
>because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
>totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
>men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
>some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
>ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
>are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
>time.
Three, male bashing is wrong.
>But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
>stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
>life) most.
Yes. Even we Martinets - sorry, private joke - agree that many
Barbara Amero
Jay Anderson (ande...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
: >
: >But, Barbara,
Hmmm...... thas what my x-husband used ta call me ... thought my name was
Butbarbara ...... always leary when addressed as such!
bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
: >like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
: >You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
: >bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
: >because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
: >totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
: >men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
: >some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
: >ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
: >are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
: >time.
: Three, male bashing is wrong.
: >But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
: >stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
: >life) most.
: Yes. Even we Martinets - sorry, private joke - agree that many
: of the guys you see on these ngs and in certain mailing lists are
: not representative of men in general.
: Thank the goddess - no, not you, Marg! :-)
: Jay
Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that
I disagree with you ... I do not think the men in here are representative
of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! And
goddess ain't gonna change that!
Barbara
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Sean C
>
> Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that
> I disagree with you ... I do not think the men in here are representative
> of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! And
> goddess ain't gonna change that!
>
> Barbara
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> ,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)
> {o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
> --ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
> She eats, has a house, has entertainment....what else is there....
> ------------------------------------------ "DukeNukem" (aka Joseph Glynn)
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Yes, Barbara is right for once. The men on here are representative of those
men in our society who are not going to bow down to you anymore. We have
woken up to the notion that our lives and our desires are as important as
yours, and we are not going to be your workhorses, meal-tickets or objects
of your twisted desire for revenge for what men did one hundred years ago.
We will assert our rights to be fathers to our children, to equal
employment and education, and the right to make *our own* reproductive and
life choices. You feminists have deprived of of these rights, or are
working to do so; and though you have the upper hand now, we will have our
freedom in the end. We will demand that you take responsibility for your
actions, as we have always had to do. Deal with it.
And yes, we will rightfully mock you when you endorse fanatic psychopaths
who think six-year olds are capable of sexual harassment. We will laugh our
asses off when you tell us we don't have any feelings -because we know that
there is no greater proof that you feminists don't give a fuck about men's
feelings then your distorted belief that we have none. And we will smile
knowingly when you call feminists "stupid, for falling for the temptation
to male bash," because your familiar attempts to place respnsibility on one
sex for being the temptors, or snakes in the Garden, is as old as Eve and
is pure sexist bullshit.
Your movement, which has used the massive propagation of sexist hatred and
stereotyping to achieve its goals, will be joining T Rex and Company soon
enough.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <redhawk-ya0230600...@news.walrus.com>
red...@walrus.com (Sean C) writes:
>
>In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU>,
cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
>(Carolyn Jean Fairman) wrote:
>
><snippo>
>>
>> childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
>> feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
>> and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem
>> to want to *keep* and others) men just as upset without being, in
all>> honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-)
-----
Personally, I am offended by bashing either gender, but women, like
men, have all styles of battle. Just as female bashing exists, so
does male bashing; what good does it do to only question the value
of one? As a feminist, I do value the idea that men are fully able
to raise children, and feel free to discuss those issues, and the
others you mention, but being critical of "male bashing" is rather
silly, in light of the fact that female bashing has been going on
for centuries, and continues in the hallowed halls of magazines
like Hustler, on comedy reviews, and here on the net. Fighting
fire with fire is simply another way to fight; if you're going to
be critical, be critical of both.
-------
>>
>Lefty
Per
In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote:
>Male bashing as bad as female bashing; both stupid
Is it? Hmmm. But on the "Dolls Can Be Raped" thread, In article
<52h1m8$i...@solaria13.Stanford.EDU> Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote:
>I am bashing the people who did it, who happened to be male.
Hmmm. Welp, let's not comment on this or draw conclusions. Let's just lay
this little baby on Fairman's doorstep and quietly tiptoe away ...
Barbara Amero
Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
Carolyn,
I appreciate you taking the time to make such a long, thoughtful post and
I'm sure many will agree with you. I also appreciate your right to have
a voice, even if it's not a voice I agree with. I was quite shocked with
what I found in alt.feminism, as I said I thought it would be women
discussing feminism. "Make myself worth talking to", you say. In this
newsgroup?? I'd be breaking the norm! BUT note in some of the threads I
post to who women and men are responding to! I had my reasons for posting
as I did and do not have to explain or justify my reasons. Tis fine for
you to have your opinions, disagree with me and express such. But as a 50
year old woman, I have to say that I do not appreciate your patronizing
lecture. And when you say focus on changing things, I'm wondering if what
you mean by change is the kind of change you have in mind. Eg. I note you
mention valuing childrearing for men as well as women and I *assume* you
mean in some type of family situation ... well that may not be something
I value! or envision in an ideal society! AND this insistence on individual
rights, freedom, blah, blah, blah, is not the route to equality or the
survival of our culture.
There's many brands of feminism with differing views. We do not all share
the same view on the equality issue. The sameness/difference debate thas
been goin' on how long! will continue long after I'm gone.
I do not read posts that I don't want to and I'm sure you can/do the
same. Basically what I am saying is that you do things the way you want to
and I will do things the way I want to. After having men tell me what to
do, I'm not about to now start letting women tell me what to do. And I'm
not all that impressed with the posts of women in here ... some who have
been just as attacking towards me as the men. As I stated in a recent
post, one of the tenents of feminism is that women have a voice and that
their voice be heard ... and from my point of view that means ALL women
and not just women whose voices we agree with. AND to be sure the voices
of radical feminists are being silenced. Feminism is full of hypocrisy!
The men in here don't need the ammunition I provide them, they have all
they need!
I want to quickly note the posts on Robin Morgan's quote ... I've not read
much of Morgan's writing but I did see an interview with her, her male
partner and their child. With tears in her eyes she said that she was
optimistic, that she 'loved men 'too much not to be. I have not seen the
quote mentioned ... but I would agree that it is possible to hate the
oppressor without hating the individual! In other words, one can hate men
without hating man.
Again I appreciate your thoughtful post and respect your right to disagree
with, disapprove of my man-bashing. BUT who are you to tell me to stop it??
AND Per writing the story of my life that is very far removed from reality
isn't just woman-bashing; it's in a class all by itself! ... but as I said
assholes know no gender ... a *woman* in a mailing list did the same just
in a different way ... in fact she *libeled* me ... and perhaps Per's post
is libelous??
Finally, I have to wonder why you be cavorting with the fellas in here ...
surely such is not your idea of making change as you suggested I do ...
you write "and I just thought, oh, great, a woman who is damaging the
ability of feminists to reach the men who would listen" ... really Carolyn
do you think the fellas in here are gonna listen?? And what man worth
anything would even be reading these posts! I don't know anything about
you, what your job is, etc., but it seems to me that if change is your
interest, your time would better be spent elsewhere.
: |\O/| ===I am a feminist
: | _ | ===I want credit for what I say
: |/ \| not what I do.
I think this is your quote?? If so, I suggest it should be the other way
around ... my x, a behaviorist, always used ta tell me not to pay attention
to what people say, to pay attention to what people do. I agree!
Barbara
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
__ Barbara A. Amero
(__) ak...@chebucto.ns.ca
/""\ http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
(\/\/)
/ \ "I am a feminist no but, but ... ."
( )
~~~~ "Equal is not equitable!"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
: followups restricted
: Details! :-)
--
Carolyn Jean Fairman
Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>Jay Anderson (ande...@netcom.com) wrote:
>:cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>: >
>: >But, Barbara,
>
>Hmmm...... thas what my x-husband used ta call me ... thought my name was
>Butbarbara ...... always leary when addressed as such!
If you agree with soemthing someone states and yet have a profound
dislike of other things that person states, /but/ is the term to
separate them.
You figure it out!
>: >bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
>: >like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
>: >You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
>: >bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
>: >because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
>: >totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
>: >men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
>: >some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
>: >ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
>: >are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
>: >time.
>
>: Three, male bashing is wrong.
>
>: >But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
>: >stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
>: >life) most.
>
>: Yes. Even we Martinets - sorry, private joke - agree that many
>: of the guys you see on these ngs and in certain mailing lists are
>: not representative of men in general.
>
>: Thank the goddess - no, not you, Marg! :-)
>
>: Jay
>
>Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that
>I disagree with you ...
*But* you replied anyway. You are disagreeing with what? That male
bashing is wrong? That it feeds posters like Per and lets them ignore
their own female bashing to pick on you instead? That you are
blaming the whole for the idiocy of a few?
Or just about what sort of men join in? Ah, well. Think about the
rest, too.
>I do not think the men in here are representative
>of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! And
>goddess ain't gonna change that!
Some men, then, or many men. Fine. No, no supernatural goddess deity
will do much, I agree. It has to be people changing themselves and
others. And you do far more harm against reaching the interested and
supportive men than most. Well, other men who harass feminist type
men as many men here have done, Per included, are also a big problem.
Buyt people like you, Barbara, screw things up. Men who want to bail
on the old style cultural norms of gender and social roles and
whatnot, if they just get lumped in with "men in gneeral and bashed by
women like you, then they bail on feminism entirely, and frequently
rejoin the rigid male gender role that does, after all, give them more
direct power, more assumptions of ability, competance and
qualification and stuff like that and do so with a hatred of women,
that they claim is really only for feminists (but female bashing
statements show the truth).
Quite simply, you are being irresponsible. The tempation to sink to
the level of someone like Per and make jokes about how Jesus could
have been a woman, but turned to male bash, is there. So be more
mature and do something one man at a time, while mostly ignoring the
worthless men who hang around here woman- and femininst-bashing.
Well, except to point out they are hypocrites for complaining about
male bashing while they post female bashing commetns and try to
justify and rationalize them instead of owning up to that incident of
sexism and apoloigizing.
Go and reasd my post and think about how, yes, maybe you feel a bit
better to lash out, just like the men who vent here by being mean and
woman-bashing. Really, thought, act like and adult. Just becuase
some men here act like little boys doesn't mean acting like a little
girl is an acceptable response.
Barbara Amero
: Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
: >Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
: >: <snipped>
CORRECTION
Carolyn,
I want to retract the following statement: "And what man worth anything
would even be reading these posts!"
I just received very nice email from a male poster in here. Of course, I
have no way of knowing if this person is male BUT I have no reason not to
believe him! AND men such as this man are not ones that you, Carolyn,
need to change, mold, etc. We don't have to waste our time trying to get
men like him to listen. And I do think that it is of benefit for reasonable
men to read posts in here to see what it is that women haveta put up with!
Often men don't believe us!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)
{o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo-----------------------------------------------------
--------------- Men are cruel, but man is kind. -Tagore ----------
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Sen...@no.mail
ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote:
>In article <541mst$s...@News.Dal.Ca>,
>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>I do not think the men in here are representative
>>of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general!
>If only it was true...
>If the men here were a good sample of the men in general then the
>libertarian party could get much more than 4% of the votes...
>IMO a large minority of the men on the net wants the government off
>their, and everybody's else, backs.
>Most feminists, on and off the net, want to use the government power
>to enforce their "moral" values.
"Most feminists." Support this with something other than your opinion
please, as it seems reasonable to assume you have not met nor
discussed this with "most feminists" on or off the net.
>That's the basic conflict between the two groups.
Hillel
In article <541mst$s...@News.Dal.Ca>,
Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>I do not think the men in here are representative
>of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general!
If only it was true...
If the men here were a good sample of the men in general then the
libertarian party could get much more than 4% of the votes...
IMO a large minority of the men on the net wants the government off
their, and everybody's else, backs.
Most feminists, on and off the net, want to use the government power
to enforce their "moral" values.
That's the basic conflict between the two groups.
Hiekeba
In article <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU>,
cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
Very nicely done Carolyn! I'm impressed.
Mary Ann
>------------------- Headers --------------------
Hillel
In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
\begin{sarcasm}
In other words, one can hate black men without hating black man.
\end{sarcasm}
Somehow, the movement that came with gems like "if we can send one man
to the moon then why can't we send them all?" continues to produce
sexist comments and then claims that the obvious meaning is not
the real meaning.
Carolyn Jean Fairman
Sean C <red...@walrus.com> wrote:
> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero) wrote:
>> Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that
>> goddess ain't gonna change that!
>
>men in our society who are not going to bow down to you anymore. We have
>woken up to the notion that our lives and our desires are as important as
>yours, and we are not going to be your workhorses, meal-tickets or objects
>of your twisted desire for revenge for what men did one hundred years ago.
Woken up to that notion? It was the defining one for many men. All
women did not want workhorses, Sean. In the cases where the woman
agreed to be a workhorse in the home, with the children, a man would
often agree to be a workhorse outside the home. Or do you think
raising children and running a house is watching the TV and eating
bon-bons?
Bashing women is as wrong, you know, as bashing men. Your above
comments are very negative.
Once womemn ended the sexist stranglehold on well paying careers, they
became workhorses outside the home,too. Women had always worked in
dirty, low paying jobs with health risks, especailly lower class and
poor women. They just finally got the opportunity to be better-paid
'workhorses'. And still cook and clean and raise the children...
And we are not talking 100 years ago, we are talking 10 years ago and
1 year ago. A woman who sought to be an contractor had door shut in
her face but for programs to force companies to accept non-white
males. That ended to magical underbidding that came a day after her
low bid came in and would have won the contract. Now, she is in a
position of enough strength to bid low from her larger volume so as to
get her companies name known for doing an excellent job -- something
she could not do starting off with all the doors shut to *her*, as a
woman. Sure, a lot of male people had this experience starting off,
but to a lesser degree. She had additional burdens on the basis of
*sex* discriminiation, too, in __1986__. [San Jose Merc News story in
recent week]
We are not talking 100 years, but 10 years and 1 year.
And equality should be a win-win result, with better people, male and
female, working at what they are good at. Unless you liked things
being tipped towards men, as they are still a fair bit, were more in
1986 and even more in the 1960's.
>We will assert our rights to be fathers to our children, to equal
>employment and education, and the right to make *our own* reproductive
>and life choices.
Hey, wow, more men taking advantage of the sex neutral Family Medical
Leave Act to be fathers to their children! Great! Or did you not
mean men in committed marriages? Most women are overjoyed at their
husband's doing his share, as so any do nowadays. More negative
stereotypes from you though. You seem to gloss over the men who
refuse to do any work for raising their children, and seem unwilling
to admit they exist. I can admit women gatekeep, but I bet you
anything you refuse to admit as many men shirk in their
responsibililities to their wives and children, in the multitude of
homes where both parents work. Well?
>You feminists have deprived of of these rights, or are
>working to do so; and though you have the upper hand now, we will have our
>freedom in the end. We will demand that you take responsibility for your
>actions, as we have always had to do. Deal with it.
Upper hand? Surely you jest! The only deprivation you feel is
equality being a loss from men not getting the advantages they
unfairly were bestowed with before. Sure a poor man less than a rich
oner, but a poor woman less than a poor man, too.
There is no upper hand for women and much less of the old one for men,
I agree. Equality means means that while you recognize women possbily
having an upper hand would be "now", as contrasted to all the many
years and centuries when men did. I just don't see women having
anything like the upper hand men had in the past; I see more equality
with neither sex having the upper hand. Why, you liked it better the
old way?
If you really are willing to toss the "boys will be boys" allowance
for men to abandon responsibility for their actions, the great. I
mean, women got labelled with too stupid to understand and a refusal
to holding responsbility by law (ie, laws written by men that women
could not open a bank account or have credit in their own name,
thankfully *recently* removed), which gets you far less than "boys
will be boys" did. One means you got power until you overstepped too
far, the other meant you got squat.
If men are owning up to their responsibility that men will not be
boys and ought to act like adults ansd respect the humanity of other
men and women, then great. Women have their own issues in the way
they were denied the trial and error learning of dealing with
responsibility.
I do hope you see the balace here I am striving for. Men and women
are not perfect; men and women have faults. Male-bashing is as wrong
as female-bashing.
>And yes, we will rightfully mock you when you endorse fanatic psychopaths
>who think six-year olds are capable of sexual harassment.
Will you mock feminists over 7 year old boys who were discipline
problems and did, in fact, keep kissing girls who didn't want it and
who kept pulling buttons off *many* girl's clothing? Or do you not
care about that case, because it is more clear and the 6 year old is
more murky and more opem to blaming feminists?
I'll mock you for being a fool to children's abilities to pester each
other with unwanted kisses, hugs and unwanted grabbing. Yes, Sean, in
6 year olds. You seem to be fine with letting this continue, but I
simply could not understand such an attitude. Overreacting by an in
school 1 day suspension, I agree. Having a rule and enforcing it, I
think is goo. d When is it unacceptable to you? When do you care
what the harassed child feels? Some magic age over 6?
>We will laugh our
>asses off when you tell us we don't have any feelings -because we know that
>there is no greater proof that you feminists don't give a fuck about men's
>feelings then your distorted belief that we have none.
Certainly uou are not talking about the posts where the feminist (er,
me) talked clearly and extensively about men not or needing to do more
*expressing of their feelings* she talked about all of them
__having__? Perhaps in your desire to hate feminists, you didn't read
with much comprehension. It really helps.
Maybe you missed how another anti-feminists talked about his
expressing his feelings being a "weak spot" when the same feminist as
above (me) talked on another topic related to men *expressing* the
feelings she talked extensively of them *all having*. Paying
attention really helps your cause. Looking foolish does not.
Men seem not to "give a fuck" that they have feelings themselves and
that is why so many refuse to express them beyond anger, call then a
weak spot, and willingly misread clear statements by feminists, if
those explicit and clear comments were of the nature that *of course*
men _have_ feelings! Duh, Sean! Most men do not express them beyond
anger, was the statement. Viola, your responses here.
>And we will smile
>knowingly when you call feminists "stupid, for falling for the temptation
>to male bash," because your familiar attempts to place respnsibility on one
>sex for being the temptors, or snakes in the Garden, is as old as Eve and
>is pure sexist bullshit.
ROTFL! There are tons of men here, running around female-bashing. A
woman who joins in is doing so of her own freee will and being just as
stupid, low and juvenile as those men. When a woman male-bashed
first, the man who joins in of his own free will is being just as
stupid, low, juvenile as those women.
You figure out where these complaints of sexism are really coming
from, Sean.
>Your movement, which has used the massive propagation of sexist hatred and
>stereotyping to achieve its goals, will be joining T Rex and Company soon
>enough.
Dream on. The changes are too set. Men are clamouring, in committed
marriages, to go part time, to be respected for talking FMLA time and
to be fathers to their children. Women are supporting this more and
more. Every man I see carrying their baby in the snuggli while out
with his wife is a hard rebuttal to your claim. And I see many.
Women will always have the vote. Women will continue to pursue
technical and science careers. The more who have done so, the more
who do, the more common it is, the more women go into it. You can't
roll back these permanent changes, but I know many men support trying
to, by ending the things that were needed so that these fully capable
and qualified women got a foot in the door once slammed in their
faces. It won't happen.
Things like what is happening in the Islamic fundamentalist takeover
in Afganistan will only feul women's certainty to prevent such sexism
in the US and other countries, and to end it there.
Bill Edison
In article <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU..
.Ngs changed
.
.Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca. wrote:
..Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
..: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com. PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
..: <snipped.
..: . The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his
..: .career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't
..: be
..: .sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
..: .supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those
..: labors for
..: .the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a
..: chiseler.
.
.How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children? Can't be
.men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have
.nothing against demanding women do it. The Mormon Elders just demanded
.women stay at home and not work outside the home. Per seems to have
.forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist,
.because if men are loafers for that work, so are women. If it is good
.that women do it, so it is for men. To split this by sex is sexist.
.And so many anti feminists are blatently and self-righteously sexist
.it can make you sick.
Sick is right! If you're going to dogmatically say that women are the
only ones who care for children then you are sadly stuck with having
to explain why those children are raised to become *sexists*. Maybe
such a sad set of circumstances could be avoided by having men raise
them.
.
.[snip]
..Hmmm.... am I understanding you correctly ... are you saying that women
..who work as homemakers do not work for a living? Is that what you're
..saying?? Maybe Fairman who isn't nutty would like to address this issue.
..So what do you think Fairman?
.
.Very common comment, raising children is not work. Men certainly
.would stoop to being "loafers" and doing it. Certainly running a
.household is just eating bon bons all day. Riight. Raising children
.is very hard work, and to parent-bash like that is exceedingly rude,
.thoughtless and worthy almost of cross posting to misc.kids so parents
.could flame you for your mindlessness. To a crisp as this is often
.discussed.
THIS is the common comment. There's no evidence that a majority of
men espouse this notion pushed by propagandizers. AND similar to the
above, you'll find yourself having to defend working women for taking
"the easy way out". One thing you'll have to concede is that at least
women have a choice in this area- men don't.
.
.I do think the time where one person staying home, with no kids, is
.past, and I am glad to see it go. But, of course, now we have a
.dearth of volunteers, as that was very commonly work homemakers had
.(but since it was not paid, it didn't 'count' and in general it seems
.men would not do it in anywhere near the number women do).
Not paid? I guess 1/2 the paycheck doesn't count. Those bonbons are
getting cheaper all the time.
.
.But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
.like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
.You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
.bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
.because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
.totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
.men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
.some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
.ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
.are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
.time.
Considering your "bon bon" mindset, it's understandable you'd run
into an attitude. Then again, it could be all those men who are wrong.
.
.However, a word of advice. Don't male bash. Be clear you mean some
.men. Men like your ex, say. Rich Payne blows this all the time, but
.none of the men here care. He goes from experience with his ex and
There's another one> "None of the men care here". Thanks for including
the usual amount of evidence. Btw...this is not "female bashing"-
it's limited to you, not women who have the ability to support their
position.
.some other women and states women as a whole are some form of bad,
.evil, whatever, it varies. Per has female bashed a few times himself
.and is completely of the opinion he is right and women are just like
.that. Thus it is ok to female bash because you can justify it by
.female bashing more and saying women are really all like that.
.Amazing But True: Per On Alt.feminism.
.
.The hypocracy is galling and can fuel anger that results in lashing
What is "galling" is the spelling!
one too many bonbons if you ask me....
Bill Edison
Carolyn Jean Fairman
Per <PerAd...@gnn.com> wrote:
>In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote:
>
>>Male bashing as bad as female bashing; both stupid
>
>Is it? Hmmm.
So you don't think so? Do you think your woman-bashing is as stupid
as Amero's male bashing, when she bashed men for their being men, like
you bash women for being female? Or do you want to be free to woman
bash as you do and yet hypocritically complain about women such as
Amero who man bash?
>But on the "Dolls Can Be Raped" thread, In article
><52h1m8$i...@solaria13.Stanford.EDU> Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote:
>
>>I am bashing the people who did it, who happened to be male.
>
>Hmmm. Welp, let's not comment on this or draw conclusions. Let's just lay
>this little baby on Fairman's doorstep and quietly tiptoe away ...
Tipetoe away with your tail between your legs, perhaps, rather than
stay and try to engage in discussion? How typical of you Per. I
would need to go back and, of course, find the context for my comment
as you tend to ignore those in favor of trying to change someone's
words by taking one sentence. I think I remember this one though.
Most simply, I think I was upset at the people sticking their finger
up the plastic vagina of a blow up doll and yelling "Take this,
Bitch", among other things directed at women. I was bashing those
people for their *actions* -- not anything related to their sex,
whatever it was. Women who did (er, to male blow up dolls, perhaps?)
that I would equally bash *for what they did*, __not_ who they are or
their sex. As it turns out the people doing this were male. Thus, I
am not bashing them FOR BEING MEN. I realize such a sublte yet
obvious distinction is beyond you, Per, but most everyone else likely
understands.
Showing off a lack of reading comperehension is really not very
impressive.
Bashing a group of people for a specific act, is not bashing that sex
for simply being that sex. Bashing some women I know for being
mindless twits, or some men I know for being mindless twits is neither
woman-bashing nor man-bashing. It is bashing mindless twits, who
deserve it for their idiocy. Or, say, people who refuse to consider
context, understand blatently obvious meanings or deliberately
misinterpret things. Male or female, they are mindless twits and
deserve being bashed for that annoying fact.
You know, people who would take the first sentence of a paragraph that
explains the meaning better and take it from that context and post all
sorts of blather about it, sometimes very short blather at least. Or
just post it with a nasty comment. You did this before, when I wrote
about how some feminists hate all men for the action of a few men.
You snipped the whole rest of the paragraph and portrayed the comment
as my *supporting* such people. In reality, far from your little
world, I followed it right up with roundly criticizing such people and
hw this weas unwise and a bad idea. Kinda like the big time snip you
made of my criticism of Amero that you don't want to see. But you
don't seem to like context and meaning get in the way of what you wnat
to twist someone's writing to appear to say. I have my post, your out
of context slam and my response to it. Early summer was the time.
Just like here where rather than accept that I criticized Amero for
male bashing, you keep bringing in red herrings and going off and
rambling tangents by bringing in other bits from other posts. The
accusation seem familair, Per? You complain I do this, then give
exmaple after example of your doing it.
Hillel
>what I found in alt.feminism, as I said I thought it would be women
>discussing feminism. "Make myself worth talking to", you say. In this
>newsgroup?? I'd be breaking the norm! BUT note in some of the threads I
>post to who women and men are responding to!
Let's give you a little bit of net.history.
Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise that
the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. After it was created
the moderators ignored the guide lines and rejected quite a few anti-
feminist articles but let most feminist articles pass.
When we (anti--feminists) got tired of that we created an un-moderated
news group, alt.feminism, for those of us who wanted a forum where all
opinions can be posted.
If you don't want such a forum for yourself then you can move to
soc.feminism. Your opinions will probably be posted, people who challenge
your opinions will probably be censored, everything will work just fine.
If you don't want such a forum for us then it is your problem.
If you can't stand the heat then just get out of the kitchen.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into
what they are by society would involve switching places and making men
the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so."
-- Jeanette Dravk (in soc.feminism)
Mark Hendy
Bravo Per this is a classic example.
PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) wrote:
> If you have been reading the thread called, "Re: A chilly climate for
>WHOM?" you have been treated to the vitriolic outpourings of one Barbara
>Amero. (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca). Among the things she has said:
>>Sure there's some fellas out there who do some good ... BUT overall MEN
>>have fucked things up and will continue to do so ... from my point of
>>view men should make the lemmings..."a moderate genocide to later save
>>a falling race"!!
>[and this]
>>Fars I can see most men are bad fathers, bad mothers!
>>Like I said before I really don't think they are useful to us anymore!
>[and this]
>>Are you suggesting that men shouldn't be gettin' a shit-kickin'???
>>I think revenge is warranted .... but not necessarily the issue ...
>>you fellas jest plain DESERVE a shit-kickin'!!!
>>Again for all the shit women have taken and still take, they are NO where
>>near as hostile as MANY men!!!!! And the fellas jest don't seem ta have
>>the stamina women had/have to cope with the shit-kickin'!
>>I think it would be nice if the fellas would jest quietly retire to the
>>parlour!
> If you wade through this sort of thing long enough, you will find the
>source of Ms. Amero's towering rage against all men. She was married, and it
>didnt' work out.
> Ms. Amero tells us that she helped put her husband through school, and
>when they got divorced, she found herself suffering financially.
> Despite all of Ms. Amero's anti-male hatred, I almost felt sorry for
>her when I read her hard-luck stories.
> Almost.
> But then I remembered that she is a feminist, and feminism is about
>equality. And I would NOT feel all that sorry for a man who was in the same
>position.
> The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his
>career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't be
>sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
>supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those labors for
>the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a chiseler.
> And if it had worked out for her, I suspect she would be just another
>smug, upper-class suburban housewife waving her diamond rings under the nose
>of the garbageMEN as she orders them to set the ash cans down softly so they
>won't disturb her rest.
> She obviously expect a big financial payoff from marriage, and that
>payoff was very important to her. If a man married hoping to hit paydirt and
>it backfired, I don't think I'd feel much sympathy for him. I treat her
>equally in this regard.
> Here is some of the things she expected:
>>... he clearly stated that I had nothing to worry about
>>... that I would be taken care of ... full prof, tenure, excellent salary
>>which would increase (hard worker, well published, merit pay); house
>>mortgage life insured; his hefty life insurance; his impending inheritance,
>>and so on.... BUT I WAS STUPIT ... FERGOT TO ASK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I
>>SHOULD L E A V E !!!!
> She has a laundry list of money, money, money, that she hoped to get,
>not through her own labors. (She even had an eye on his inheritance. Hmmm?
>Did that play a part in her decision to marry him?)
> And here is the kicker: Ms. Amero was not dumped. SHE left HIM. She
>walked out, apparently expecting to continue living the good life. She is
>absolutely *enraged* at all men because her cushy plans did not work out.
> She also said that she had a chance to go to college herself during
>the marriage. She told of taking Women's Studies courses. Well, if she had
>studied something that might have given her usable skills, she might now be
>earning a better wage. Instead, it was her *choice* to take Women's Studies
>courses, and now she is absolutely enraged at all the male race because that
>course of study hasn't paid off very well.
> Ms. Amero's case would be just another soap-opera if it didn't tell us
>so much about the way that feminists think. Ms. Amero unwittingly reveals an
>awful lot about feminist ethos.
> Ms. Amero is revealing a pathological inability to *take
>responsibility for her own actions.*
> *She* decided on a course of marrying a man as a meal ticket. *She*
>choose to spend her college tuition on such things as Women's Studies. *She*
>decided to walk out of the marriage. And now that *her own actions* have not
>paid off, she virulently *hates men!* Instead of focusing the responsibility
>inward, on her own choices, she throws it outward onto every man on the face
>of the earth.
> There have been men who have gone through similar things. I know one
>guy who helped his wife through college and then *she* left. Feminists would
>never tolerate that man turning into a woman-hater, but Ms. Amero is in no
>danger of winding up on any list of women regarded as "not real feminists."
> Ms. Amero has expressed a towering outrage over the INDIGNITY that she
>ACTUALLY HAS TO WORK FOR A LIVING!
> Well, Ms. Amero, welcome to the club.
> And please ... try to take it like a man.
Hillel
>I want to quickly note the posts on Robin Morgan's quote ... I've not read
>much of Morgan's writing but I did see an interview with her, her male
>partner and their child. With tears in her eyes she said that she was
>optimistic, that she 'loved men 'too much not to be.
For those who don't remember how a feminist who "loves men" writes,
here is a good example:
"In her ground-breaking new book, "The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of
Terrorism," Robin Morgan advances an analysis of terrorism in which the soldier
(the State's hero) and the terrorist (the Revolution's hero) are mirror-image
expressions of male nature, not human nature. A feminist writer who was once
involved in small, pre-Weathermen, "armed propaganda" groups, Morgan opens a
window of thought and action that lets us move out of a male-centered politics
of Thanatos - the romance of death - into a feminist politics of Eros, a loving
life force.
The following excerpt, drawn from Chapters 1,5 and 6 of "The Demon Lover,"
shows us how maleness itself becomes the weapon of destruction, and how
women who seek political change are coerced, deceived, and seduced into
fighting for manhood under the illusion that they are ending their own
oppression and creating a humane world."
--- Ms. magazine, March 1989
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have
been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men."
-- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)
Hillel
##Most feminists, on and off the net, want to use the government power
##to enforce their "moral" values.
In article <543n17$4...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, <Sen...@no.mail> wrote:
>"Most feminists." Support this with something other than your opinion
>please, as it seems reasonable to assume you have not met nor
>discussed this with "most feminists" on or off the net.
See the kind of laws that the feminist representatives and the
feminists on the net support.
"Violence Against Women Act," anti-porno laws, anti-prostitution
laws, affirmative action, choice for women & no choice for men,
no federal money for men-only colleges (e.g. VMI), federal money
for women-only colleges (e.g. Mills college), priority for women
in custody and divorce; all those are feminist issues.
All those actions require coercion by the government, and most feminist
representatives support at least some of them. On the net, you can
see how "choice for men" draws a lot of feminist fire, but very
little feminist support.
Jok...@no.mail
ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote:
>In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>In other words, one can hate men without hating man.
>\begin{sarcasm}
>In other words, one can hate black men without hating black man.
>\end{sarcasm}
>Somehow, the movement that came with gems like "if we can send one man
>to the moon then why can't we send them all?" continues to produce
>sexist comments and then claims that the obvious meaning is not
>the real meaning.
But you approve of generalizing, bashing, and sexism!!! You
participate so willingly in it, commit it, and defend it!!
Barbara Amero
: >Jay Anderson (ande...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >:cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
snip
: Go and reasd my post and think about how, yes, maybe you feel a bit
: better to lash out, just like the men who vent here by being mean and
: woman-bashing. Really, thought, act like and adult. Just becuase
: some men here act like little boys doesn't mean acting like a little
: girl is an acceptable response.
I read your post and replied. Again you are free to your opionions and
free to express them in the manner you wish BUT ya ain't gonna impose yer
way of thinking on me! yer not gonna make me sit up and bark!
I want to remind you again that one of the tenents of feminism is that
women have a voice and that their voices be heard ... that means ALL
women and not just the the women YOU deem responsible! OR the women who
behave as you think they should! Perhaps you should be a liddle more
'mature'. You give the fellas in here ammunition to bash feminism ...
MANY feminists are the biggest hypocrites of all humankind!
Hmmm...are you one of them elitist feminists who says any woman is in
a state of false consciousness if she don't share yer consciousness???
IMO tis more important to attend to what people do and not what they say!
AND again I have not met a feminist who does not engage in male-bashing!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
__ Barbara A. Amero
(__) ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca
/""\ http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
(\/\/)
/ \ It's not surprising that we haven't achieved
( ) equality; we haven't even defined it.
~~~~ - Wendy Kaminer
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Robin E. Cook
In <543n17$4...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Sen...@no.mail writes:
>
>ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote:
>
>>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>>I do not think the men in here are representative
>>>of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general!
>
>
>>If the men here were a good sample of the men in general then the
>>libertarian party could get much more than 4% of the votes...
I think they'd be scared off first. ;)
>
>>IMO a large minority of the men on the net wants the government off
>>their, and everybody's else, backs.
Statistics, please.
>
>>Most feminists, on and off the net, want to use the government power
>>to enforce their "moral" values.
>
>"Most feminists." Support this with something other than your opinion
>please, as it seems reasonable to assume you have not met nor
>discussed this with "most feminists" on or off the net.
Bingo!
Robin E. Cook
In <543ro0$7...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>I was quite shocked with
>>what I found in alt.feminism, as I said I thought it would be women
>>discussing feminism. "Make myself worth talking to", you say. In this
>>newsgroup?? I'd be breaking the norm! BUT note in some of the threads
I
>>post to who women and men are responding to!
>
>
>Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise
that
>the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. After it was
created
>the moderators ignored the guide lines and rejected quite a few anti-
>feminist articles but let most feminist articles pass.
>
>When we (anti--feminists) got tired of that we created an un-moderated
>news group, alt.feminism, for those of us who wanted a forum where all
>opinions can be posted.
Who's this "we"? Checking the FAQ, the forum is clearly established
for discussing feminism. Why antifeminists would form such a newsgroup
is beyond me. It seems that it would be called alt.antifeminism if it
was intended as an antifeminist newsgroup. Certainly, alt.feminazis
suggests a forum specifically for antifeminist views.
Hillel's explanation is fishy to me. It's almost like the local
chapter of the KKK forming an alt.civil-rights newsgroup.
Barbara Amero
Hillel (ga...@cs.duke.edu) wrote:
: In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
: Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
: \begin{sarcasm}
: In other words, one can hate black men without hating black man.
: \end{sarcasm}
YOU "arse-in-pooches"!
I WROTE:
... but I would agree that it is possible to hate the
oppressor without hating the individual! In other words, one can hate men
without hating man.
: Somehow, the movement that came with gems like "if we can send one man
: to the moon then why can't we send them all?" continues to produce
: sexist comments and then claims that the obvious meaning is not
: the real meaning.
Yah! Why can't we send them all to the moon, if they won't quietly retire
to the parlour!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,~, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)
{o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
Any person can tell, when they look around at men in general that God never
intended women to be very particular. -Anonymous(Quoted by Nellie McClung
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
--
Femi...@equals.hate
reco...@ix.netcom.com(Robin E. Cook) wrote:
:In <543ro0$7...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
:>
:>In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
:>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
:>>I was quite shocked with
:>>what I found in alt.feminism, as I said I thought it would be women
:>>discussing feminism. "Make myself worth talking to", you say. In this
:>>newsgroup?? I'd be breaking the norm! BUT note in some of the threads
:I
:>>post to who women and men are responding to!
:>
:>Let's give you a little bit of net.history.
:>
:>Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise
:that
:>the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. After it was
:created
:>the moderators ignored the guide lines and rejected quite a few anti-
:>feminist articles but let most feminist articles pass.
:>
:>When we (anti--feminists) got tired of that we created an un-moderated
:>news group, alt.feminism, for those of us who wanted a forum where all
:>opinions can be posted.
:Who's this "we"? Checking the FAQ, the forum is clearly established
:for discussing feminism. Why antifeminists would form such a newsgroup
:is beyond me. It seems that it would be called alt.antifeminism if it
:was intended as an antifeminist newsgroup. Certainly, alt.feminazis
:suggests a forum specifically for antifeminist views.
:Hillel's explanation is fishy to me.
Hey, you better write that hunch up as feminist research.
:It's almost like the local
Femi...@equals.hate
ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote:
:In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
:Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
:>I want to quickly note the posts on Robin Morgan's quote ... I've not read
:>much of Morgan's writing but I did see an interview with her, her male
:>partner and their child. With tears in her eyes she said that she was
:>optimistic, that she 'loved men 'too much not to be.
:For those who don't remember how a feminist who "loves men" writes,
:here is a good example:
:"In her ground-breaking new book, "The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of
:Terrorism," Robin Morgan advances an analysis of terrorism in which the soldier
:(the State's hero) and the terrorist (the Revolution's hero) are mirror-image
:expressions of male nature, not human nature. A feminist writer who was once
:involved in small, pre-Weathermen, "armed propaganda" groups, Morgan opens a
:window of thought and action that lets us move out of a male-centered politics
:of Thanatos - the romance of death - into a feminist politics of Eros, a loving
:life force.
:The following excerpt, drawn from Chapters 1,5 and 6 of "The Demon Lover,"
:shows us how maleness itself becomes the weapon of destruction, and how
:women who seek political change are coerced, deceived, and seduced into
:fighting for manhood under the illusion that they are ending their own
:oppression and creating a humane world."
The outrage is the WOMEN desert their duty when active duty looms. When
the ship goes down, women are the FIRST ones of the ship, THEN the children,
THEN the men. Men are forced into military duty, while women are "forced" to
stay safely at home making bullets. Yet, women are the most violent segment
of our society. Violence must be encoded into women's genes in the form of
estrogen poisoning. If only we could find a cure.
: --- Ms. magazine, March 1989
:Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
:"Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have
:been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men."
: -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)
Excellent post, Hillel. I was going to snip it for brevity, but I couldn't find anything
I had the heart to snip. It's all so good.
Femi...@equals.hate
Excellent post, Hillel. Very well put.
ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote:
:In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
:Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
:>I was quite shocked with
:>what I found in alt.feminism, as I said I thought it would be women
:>discussing feminism. "Make myself worth talking to", you say. In this
:>newsgroup?? I'd be breaking the norm! BUT note in some of the threads I
:>post to who women and men are responding to!
:Let's give you a little bit of net.history.
:Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise that
:the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. After it was created
:the moderators ignored the guide lines and rejected quite a few anti-
:feminist articles but let most feminist articles pass.
:When we (anti--feminists) got tired of that we created an un-moderated
:news group, alt.feminism, for those of us who wanted a forum where all
:opinions can be posted.
:If you don't want such a forum for yourself then you can move to
Femi...@equals.hate
Apparently what feminists mean when they say "everybody stop bashing,"
what they really mean is "everybody, but women, stop bashing."
PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) wrote:
:In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote:
:>Male bashing as bad as female bashing; both stupid
:Is it? Hmmm. But on the "Dolls Can Be Raped" thread, In article
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>
>Ngs changed
>
>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
<everything snipped>
OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man is
a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex. If a man is a contemptible
"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody
works outside the home, nobody eats. If a man is a noble hero because
he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a noble
heroine if she does the same. If a man is a contemptible coward if he
shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc..
_That_, and nothing less, is what _I_ mean by feminism. Is there any
part of that anybody doesn't understand?
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
Barbara Amero
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <redhawk-ya0230600...@news.walrus.com>
: red...@walrus.com (Sean C) writes:
: >
: >In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU>,
: cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
: >(Carolyn Jean Fairman) wrote:
>
snippity snip fairman's lecture
: -----
: Personally, I am offended by bashing either gender, but women, like
: men, have all styles of battle. Just as female bashing exists, so
: does male bashing; what good does it do to only question the value
: of one? As a feminist, I do value the idea that men are fully able
: to raise children, and feel free to discuss those issues, and the
: others you mention, but being critical of "male bashing" is rather
: silly, in light of the fact that female bashing has been going on
: for centuries, and continues in the hallowed halls of magazines
: like Hustler, on comedy reviews, and here on the net. Fighting
: fire with fire is simply another way to fight; if you're going to
: be critical, be critical of both.
: -------
: >>
: >Lefty
So there is some sanity in here. Are you saying that you are willing to
let me be who I be? to fight fire with fire if I so choose? What do we
want women to be? Fairman clones? Who was the famous or infamous feminist
writer who said that women won't win til we let women pay attention to
aesthetics or not -- to dye our gray hair or not; to paint our faces like
liddel hussies or not(my words); to wear doc martins with a ball gown or
not; and so on?
IMO to live with a man is crazy-making! And research suggests that
marriage for women is indeed an emotional hazard (tho' I don't need
research to validate that, all I have to do is reflect on all the women
I've know since I was a kid!)
BUT what I found in Women's Studies was more of the same crazy-making,
jest a different sex! I used ta have men defining my reality for me ...
then I had women defining my reality for me ... now I define my reality
for me, thank you very much!!
I think Fairman assigns way too much power to me ... ain't nothing I've
got ta say that's gonna influence any of these mental midgets ... they've
already got their minds made up. I stopped playing Mother Tit to my kids
6 years ago, put my needs ahead of theirs ... so ta the least I ain't
inta re-parenting, re-nurturing, re-conditioning men! If Fairman, etc.
wants to play Mother Tit To The World thas her/their business but it's
not a gig I want! AND after listening to woman-bashing for half a century,
if I want to engage in man-bashng I will!
I'm for women only universities with women faculty ... men jest won't keep
their mouths in park! I attended a university that is concerned primarily
with the education of women. It considers the educational needs of women
to be paramount, although men are welcomed as non-resident students. It
started as an academy established by the Sisters of Charity in 1873. Men
were first admitted in 1967. Today, women represent 85% of the enrollment
... I would like to see that 100% In a women's studies class with over
50 women and 3 men, the men jest wouldn't shut up ... one man in particular
who was simply auditing the course ... the Prof had to take him aside and
tell him not to answer her questions. In another class with about 25 women
and 1 man, not only the female students were deferring to this lone man
but also the self-confident Assoc. Prof--female! And to top it off the
man who was auditing that class and told ta shut up approached me wanting
to know where the Women's Studies Society Club meets ... he wants ta help
women ... I told him the best way for him ta help women is to stop being
the first one ta the microphone like the rest of the damn men! AND
spending 20+ years in the company of white hard dicks (aka white male
middle-class knowers) should be enough to make any woman a man-hater!
Well them dinosars at U of A (if you're having a wee peek in here) will
be retiring soon, hopefully to be replaced with sumpthin' more refreshing.
AND I'm fer woman only spaces. Now if all this (and more) makes me a bigot
then I'll wear the label proudly! Men had their turn, they fucked up!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
__ Barbara A. Amero
(__) ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca
/""\ http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
(\/\/)
/ \ The time has come to valorize woman's ideas
( ) at the expense of those of man...
~~~~ -Andre Breton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Alan Madsen
Barbara Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
<snip>
: AND again I have not met a feminist who does not engage in male-bashing!
just how many feminists have you met...?
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Fraxis Vendalwats
Responding to Carolyn Jean Fairman's obligatory rebuke and
advise to become a kinder, gentler misandrist, Barbara Amero
wrote:
[much snippage]
>MANY feminists are the biggest hypocrites of all humankind!
[more snippage]
>
>AND again I have not met a feminist who does not engage in male-bashing!
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Barbara A. Amero
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
In the interest of fairness, please note that these excerpted
lines are not the heart and soul of BAA's response to CJF.
They do merit special attention, however, because such
profound truths will rarely be heard from a feminist.
I'll continue to wonder if she really meant it.
Frax
Allison Gau
Carolyn,
I found your remarks to be a bit patronizing. Barbara doesn't even pretend
to speak for all women, or all feminists. So why should you dictate what
she should or should not say because of the potential harm to the feminist
cause?
Thinks about this -- if a man says something stupid he is simply an idiot.
If a woman says something stupid she not only is an idiot, but she also
damages the credibility of all women? Come on.
Fe/male bashing and taking personal potshots at people tends to degrade the
credibility of the author, as does poor grammar. But this is the internet --
you can say whatever you want, however you want. It is up to the reader to
pick out what she or he thinks is good information.
Allison
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Gau (g...@sfu.ca) >> Cole's Law:
School of Engineering Science >>
Simon Fraser University >> Thinly sliced cabbage.
Burnaby, BC >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
[Bits and pieces of Carolyn's post, edited to keep size down]
[Also note that the first chunk is actually located much farther
down in the original post]
>I didn't think you were worth talking to, because you come across as
>no better than these bitter, agnry, feminists-hating woman-bashers
>(note, I am not confusing feminism with women. There are femininsts
>*haters* who may like some women but sure seem willing to bash all of
>them) and I just thought, oh, great, a woman who is damaging the
>ability of feminists to reach the men who would listen.
--
>But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
>like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
>You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
>bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
>because you label all for the idiocy of the few.
>However, a word of advice. Don't male bash. Be clear you mean some
>men.
>The hypocracy is galling and can fuel anger that results in lashing
>out just as immaturely as the men did, but you get nowhere that way,
>or really you get as far as they do. And at as low a level. It isn't
>worth it.
>But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
>stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
>life) most.
>Well for the love of life, don't stoop to their level! It is obvious
>how many men here will reinterpret what you said and and change it,
>and when caught will beg off claiming "sarcasm" and "lack of a sense
>of humor in feminists".
>So stop it! Focus in reaching the men you can, pointing out the
>foibles of certain types of men of which your ex is one and try to
>focus your anger at changing things.
>Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing
>childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
>feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
>and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem
>to want to *keep* and others) men just as upset without being, in all
>honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-)
Allison Gau
sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:
>(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>>
>>Ngs changed
>>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
> <everything snipped>
> OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man is
>a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
>contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex.
Good enough.
>If a man is a contemptible
>"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
>some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody
>works outside the home, nobody eats.
And if everybody works outside the home, then who takes care of the kids?
Either one takes care of the kids or the couple PAYS someone to take care
of the kids (and likewise, the housework).
>If a man is a noble hero because
>he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a noble
>heroine if she does the same. If a man is a contemptible coward if he
>shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc..
That's all very nice and well, assuming that women have equal opportunity
to work as a fire-fighter or soldier.
>_That_, and nothing less, is what _I_ mean by feminism. Is there any
>part of that anybody doesn't understand?
>--
>sm...@ix.netcom.com
>"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
> wanting to be by oneself,
> being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
Says the Anarchist ...
Ed Falk
In article <543ro0$7...@hal.cs.duke.edu>, Hillel <ga...@cs.duke.edu> wrote:
>Let's give you a little bit of net.history.
>
>Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise that
Do you have any of the CFV's archived by any chance? *My* recollection
is just the opposite. Soc.feminism was created to get away from the
constant infantile "Feminism bad, no feminism good" arguments.
Alt.feminism was created to give the anti-feminists a place to do their
whining so the grownups could have a real discussion in peace and
quiet.
--
-ed falk, sun microsystems -- fa...@sun.com
If there's ever a nuclear holocaust, the only things left
alive afterward will be cockroaches and spammers
-- Dan Gillmor, Mercury News
Barbara Amero
Sean C (red...@walrus.com) wrote:
: >
: > Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that
: > I disagree with you ... I do not think the men in here are representative
: > of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! And
: > goddess ain't gonna change that!
: >
: > Barbara
: >
: > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
: > ,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)
: > {o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
: > --ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
: > She eats, has a house, has entertainment....what else is there....
: > ------------------------------------------ "DukeNukem" (aka Joseph Glynn)
: > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
: Yes, Barbara is right for once.
Oh! Come on now fella ... I know ya don't like me but Geez! you know I've
been right more than once ... play fair-man.
: The men on here are representative of those
: men in our society who are not going to bow down to you anymore. We have
: woken up to the notion that our lives and our desires are as important as
: yours,
Hmmm....interesting concept ... Geez! I was ahead of you in waking up
ta the notion that my life and desires are as important as any man's, my
children and my cute lil dog!
: and we are not going to be your workhorses, meal-tickets or objects
: of your twisted desire for revenge for what men did one hundred years ago.
I tole ya ... don't ya listen ... jest give the women the education and
the jobs then you fellas don't haveta be bothered anymore!!
: We will assert our rights to be fathers to our children, to equal
: employment and education, and the right to make *our own* reproductive and
: life choices. You feminists have deprived of of these rights, or are
: working to do so; and though you have the upper hand now, we will have our
: freedom in the end. We will demand that you take responsibility for your
: actions, as we have always had to do. Deal with it.
Now I got as much of a giggle out of this as I did readin' some feminist
far fetched ideas. You know the bit about men seeking to control women,
women's bodies and their children. I read that men get women under
their control through alcohol, drugs, hunger, desperation and manipulation.
Now I'd haveta agree that does go on. BUT what about all them fellas that
flee from the bands of matrimony? Sheeit! There's an over abundance of
books on the market telling women how to catch the elusive man and make
him pop the right question. Many women will do whatever it takes to "get
her man", perhaps by withholding sex or by tricking him into unprotected
sex with conception the goal (and geesus what else are they ta do, we
gotta survive!) Once caught, however, men seek to control women's bodies
and their children in order to pass on all their worldly goods to
legitimate heirs...yup thas a fact. BUT in all of this, they seem ta have
misplaced the many propertyless men as well as the many men who do not
want their children, who do not seek full custody of their children (or even
want it!) upon marital breakdown ... who do not want to support their
children financially or emotionally!
Now jest how many are there of them fellas you be talkin' about who want
their rights to be fathers to their children? (I assume that includes
financially and emotionally supporting them??) Is there really enough of
them to be concerned about? We do haveta have priorites! And yer own
reproductive choices? What might they be?? How many of you fellas have
had a nite on the town and don't give a rats ass if you've reproduced or
not?? Seems ta me that what yer really concerned about is yer education
and employment...am I right again? Well ya should be worried! Deal with it!
: And yes, we will rightfully mock you when you endorse fanatic psychopaths
: who think six-year olds are capable of sexual harassment.
Fergawdsakes fella get a grip ... of course 6 year olds are capable of
sexual harassment, and sexual abuse/assault ... if ya ain't got no life
experience least ya can do a liddle bit of readin'.
: We will laugh our
: asses off when you tell us we don't have any feelings -because we know that
: there is no greater proof that you feminists don't give a fuck about men's
: feelings then your distorted belief that we have none.
I'm only speakin' fer meself here BUT I don't deny that you fellas have
feelings ... I'm jest not prepared to help ya get in touch with them ...
I ain't got no time ta re-parent, re-nurture, re-condition ya!! It's time
fer you fellas ta start takin' care of yerselves and ta stop relying on
womenfolk ta take care of ya...time ta cut the umbilical cord! Deal with it!
: And we will smile
: knowingly when you call feminists "stupid, for falling for the temptation
: to male bash," because your familiar attempts to place respnsibility on one
: sex for being the temptors, or snakes in the Garden, is as old as Eve and
: is pure sexist bullshit.
Well I gotta agree with ya there ... I don't think them self-professed
feminists should be goin' around callin' women stupid, nutty! All that does
is give feminism a bad name! makes feminists look like a buncha hypocrites!
: Your movement, which has used the massive propagation of sexist hatred and
: stereotyping to achieve its goals, will be joining T Rex and Company soon
: enough.
Well you fellas never used ta have a problem with sexist hatred and
stereotyping to achieve yer goals ... so whas the problem with it now??
Oh! I guess you fellas have seen the light, that kind of behavior jest
isn't fair! Deal with it!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,!, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)
{o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
All the seeds of social abominations such as savagery, barbarism, and
civilization have as their sole pivot the subjection of women.-Charles Fourier
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Gro...@step.off
g...@sfu.ca (Allison Gau) wrote:
:sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:
:>(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
:>>
:>>Ngs changed
:>>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
:>>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:>>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
:> <everything snipped>
:> OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man is
:>a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
:>contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex.
:Good enough.
:>If a man is a contemptible
:>"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
:>some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody
:>works outside the home, nobody eats.
:And if everybody works outside the home, then who takes care of the kids?
Have you ever heard of day care?
:>If a man is a noble hero because
:>he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a noble
:>heroine if she does the same. If a man is a contemptible coward if he
:>shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc..
:That's all very nice and well, assuming that women have equal opportunity
:to work as a fire-fighter or soldier.
That's all very nice and well, assuming that men have equal opportunity to
NOT work as a soldier. Personally, I think women who become pregnant
just prior to active duty should be court martialled for desertion of duty.
Gro...@step.off
Whatever happened to the notion that it's what's inside that counts?
Judging someone by their level of education rather than the content
of their ideas drips with elitism. Some people, especially people born
in the very early half of the century in rural poverty, had little opportunity
for education. Many children were pulled out of school to help their
sharecropper parents farm the land so they could have a roof over
their heads.
You elitist snobs condescendingly look down your noses at people
who were deprived of your opportunities and think "how inferior."
Well, I say what degrades your post isn't your grammar but the content
of your mind.
g...@sfu.ca (Allison Gau) wrote:
:Carolyn,
:I found your remarks to be a bit patronizing. Barbara doesn't even pretend
:to speak for all women, or all feminists. So why should you dictate what
:she should or should not say because of the potential harm to the feminist
:cause?
:Thinks about this -- if a man says something stupid he is simply an idiot.
:If a woman says something stupid she not only is an idiot, but she also
:damages the credibility of all women? Come on.
:Fe/male bashing and taking personal potshots at people tends to degrade the
:credibility of the author, as does poor grammar. But this is the internet --
:you can say whatever you want, however you want. It is up to the reader to
:pick out what she or he thinks is good information.
:Allison
:--
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:Allison Gau (g...@sfu.ca) >> Cole's Law:
:School of Engineering Science >>
:Simon Fraser University >> Thinly sliced cabbage.
:Burnaby, BC >>
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:>honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-)
Barbara Amero
Mark Hendy (ma...@pcug.org.au) wrote:
: Bravo Per this is a classic example.
of anither mealy mouth sycophant makin' smarmy comments without even
a wee bit of evidence ta back up what he be sayin'! jest ask Nell, the
girl with the naturally curly mind!
Robin E. Cook
In <5449c8$i...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM> fa...@peregrine.eng.sun.com (Ed
Falk) writes:
>
>In article <543ro0$7...@hal.cs.duke.edu>, Hillel <ga...@cs.duke.edu>
wrote:
>>Let's give you a little bit of net.history.
>>
>>Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise
that
>>the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. ...
>
>Do you have any of the CFV's archived by any chance? *My*
recollection
>is just the opposite. Soc.feminism was created to get away from the
>constant infantile "Feminism bad, no feminism good" arguments.
>
>Alt.feminism was created to give the anti-feminists a place to do
their
>whining so the grownups could have a real discussion in peace and
>quiet.
Maybe the antifeminists are masochists as well; suggesting that a
related newsgroup would be perfect for them.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <544h5u$d...@News.Dal.Ca> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero)
writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <redhawk-ya0230600...@news.walrus.com>
>: red...@walrus.com (Sean C) writes:
>: >
>: >In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU>,
>: cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
>: >(Carolyn Jean Fairman) wrote:
>>
>snippity snip fairman's lecture
>
>: -----
>: Personally, I am offended by bashing either gender, but women,
like men, have all styles of battle. Just as female bashing exists,
so does male bashing; what good does it do to only question the value
of one? As a feminist, I do value the idea that men are fully able
>: to raise children, and feel free to discuss those issues, and
the others you mention, but being critical of "male bashing" is rather
>: silly, in light of the fact that female bashing has been going
on for centuries, and continues in the hallowed halls of magazines
>: like Hustler, on comedy reviews, and here on the net. Fighting
>: fire with fire is simply another way to fight; if you're going
to be critical, be critical of both.
>: -------
>: >>
>: >Lefty
>
>So there is some sanity in here. Are you saying that you are willing
to>let me be who I be? to fight fire with fire if I so choose? What do
we>want women to be? Fairman clones?
------
Barbara, it is not up to me to "let" you be. You are what you
are, and you have every right to be whatever that is as long as
you don't scare the animals :]
------
Who was the famous or infamous feminist>writer who said that women
won't win til we let women pay attention to>aesthetics or not -- to dye
our gray hair or not; to paint our faces like>liddel hussies or not(my
words); to wear doc martins with a ball gown or >not; and so on? >IMO
to live with a man is crazy-making! And research suggests that
>marriage for women is indeed an emotional hazard (tho' I don't
needresearch to validate that, all I have to do is reflect on all the
women>I've know since I was a kid!) >BUT what I found in Women's
Studies was more of the same crazy-making, >jest a different sex! I
used ta have men defining my reality for me ...
>then I had women defining my reality for me ... now I define my
reality>for me, thank you very much!!
------
hahahha! I've never had the time for "women's studies"; simply
too busy doing my own thang. I understand. I agree. Each one
of us must find our own way.
-------
>I think Fairman assigns way too much power to me ... ain't nothing
I'vegot ta say that's gonna influence any of these mental midgets ...
they've >already got their minds made up. I stopped playing Mother Tit
to my kids >6 years ago, put my needs ahead of theirs ... so ta the
least I ain't >inta re-parenting, re-nurturing, re-conditioning men!
------
I might not have stated it exactly as you have, since I beleive
that all of us should place children's needs first, but I do think
it takes a certain degree of courage for some woman to leave their
children in the more capable hands of the father when that is the
case. Women are more free today to pursue their own lifestyle, and
there are some men who are a bit worried about that. I commend you
for the courage that may have taken, but would roundly criticize
you for placing your child's needs as secondary. Playing "mother
tit", as you say, is not necessary, but when you bring a child into
the world, you don't simply fuck and run. I would hope, that, in
your quest for freedom, that you would, at least, consider your
financial obligations to these children, at best, consider your
relationship with them.
------
If Fairman, etc.>wants to play Mother Tit To The World thas her/their
business but it's>not a gig I want! AND after listening to
woman-bashing for half a century,>if I want to engage in man-bashng I
will!
------
In issues related to free speech, we are in agreement. I don't
necessarily thing that man-bashing is the best way to seek
equality, but it is certainly your right, and is certainly one
method of battle.....your choice!
-------
>
>I'm for women only universities with women faculty ... men jest won't
keep>their mouths in park! I attended a university that is concerned
primarily>with the education of women. It considers the educational
needs of women>to be paramount, although men are welcomed as
non-resident students.
-------
I think that female-only schools are not in the "long-term" best
interests of women or society. They may, indeed, provide some
short-term benefits in allowing women to compete in an enviornment
that is less hostile to them, but do you really think that that
will (long term) prepare them for the real world? I prefer an
inclusive enrollment.
--------
It>started as an academy established by the Sisters of Charity in
1873. Men>were first admitted in 1967. Today, women represent 85% of
the enrollment>... I would like to see that 100% In a women's studies
class with over>50 women and 3 men, the men jest wouldn't shut up ...
one man in particularwho was simply auditing the course ... the Prof
had to take him aside and>tell him not to answer her questions.
------
Well, if people were able to "listen" as well as speak, the world
might indeed be a better place, but I'm not really sure that the
solution chosen was right. It might have been better for your
instructor to place time limits on speaking so that everyone who
wanted to speak would have had a chance, i.e. every student gets
to contribute twice a week. A gender neutral managment of a
class is more equitable than placing a "gag order" on men only.
------
In another class with about 25 women>and 1 man, not only the female
students were deferring to this lone man>but also the self-confident
Assoc. Prof--female! And to top it off the>man who was auditing that
class and told ta shut up approached me wanting>to know where the
Women's Studies Society Club meets ... he wants ta help
>women ... I told him the best way for him ta help women is to stop
being>the first one ta the microphone like the rest of the damn men!
-----
I used to teach kindergarten, and believe me, there are other
ways of handling over-aggresiveness in the classroom. Exclusion
is not the answer.
------
AND >spending 20+ years in the company of white hard dicks (aka white
male>middle-class knowers) should be enough to make any woman a
man-hater!>Well them dinosars at U of A (if you're having a wee peek in
here) will>be retiring soon, hopefully to be replaced with sumpthin'
more refreshing.>AND I'm fer woman only spaces. Now if all this (and
more) makes me a bigot>then I'll wear the label proudly! Men had their
turn, they fucked up!
-------
I can empathize with your analysis of white male privilege, but
hating all men is not productive. I have learned that (at least
for me) the best way to tackle incompetence and privilege is to
expose it. Hatred is not a good thing; it eats you up from the
inside out and leaves you a bitter mass of skeletal lonliness;
better to throw out the bad, and keep the good, and enjoy life with
all its madness. As far as men "fucking up".....whatever makes you
think women in power would have had any different results?
Lefty
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <543t0t$7...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
>
>"Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have
>been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men."
> -- ("Against Our Will", Susan
Brownmiller)
As a _feminist_, I far prefer Intolger's philosophy. Women ARE NOT
weak, wimpy, passive "victims"!
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
Zenoink
In <andersonD...@netcom.com> ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson)
writes:
>
>In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>>
>>But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
>>like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
>>You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
>>bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is
rude
>>totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see
that
>>men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out
that
>>some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
>>ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
>>are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
>>time.
>
>Three, male bashing is wrong.
>
>>But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
>>stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be
to
>>life) most.
>
>of the guys you see on these ngs and in certain mailing lists are
>not representative of men in general.
>
>Thank the goddess - no, not you, Marg! :-)
>
>Jay
>
I would agree it is a good idea not to let the goats get too much
attention; they tend to butt all the more when they do.
But, you know, I really do not get the impression that Barabara Amero's
posts bashed men in general. Certainly she was being sarcastic about
the anti-woman values embraced by the people to whom she replied, but
she didn't seem to say this was something that applied across the
board.
To take things one step further in this thread, should we really be so
defensive? I am concerned that pro-feminists here are too concerned
about appearing "nasty" or "unhelpful" or (dare I say it?) appearing
not to approve of "feminine" women and "masculine" men.
What I would call the "rush to the middle ground" sometimes covers up
unpleasant truths that need to be heard.
Kay
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <5453co$5...@nicaragua.earthlink.net> Gro...@step.off writes:
>:>>
(edit)>
>NOT work as a soldier. Personally, I think women who become pregnant
>just prior to active duty should be court martialled for desertion of
duty.
------
hahaha...you want to punish women because they gestate...hehehe
typical of a person with womb envy.
Lefty
>
>
>
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <54423e$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> hie...@aol.com (Hiekeba) writes:
>
>In article <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU>,
>cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>
>
>Very nicely done Carolyn! I'm impressed.
>
>Mary Ann
>
>>Ngs changed
>>
>>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
>>>: <snipped>
>>>: > The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that
when his
>>>: >career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I
>wouldn't
>>>: be
>>>: >sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few
years
>>>: >supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those
>>>: labors for
>>>: >the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a
>>>: chiseler.
>>
>>How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children? Can't be
>>men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have
>>nothing against demanding women do it.
I do.
The Mormon Elders just demanded
>>women stay at home and not work outside the home.
The Mormon Elders can take a flying leap down my toilet.
Per seems to have
>>forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist,
>>because if men are loafers for that work, so are women.
Precisely.
If it is good
>>that women do it, so it is for men.
Precisely.
To split this by sex is sexist.
Precisely.
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <5442pk$5...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> zen...@ix.netcom.com(Zenoink)
writes:
>To take things one step further in this thread, should we really be so
>defensive? I am concerned that pro-feminists here are too concerned
>about appearing "nasty" or "unhelpful" or (dare I say it?) appearing
>not to approve of "feminine" women and "masculine" men.
>
>What I would call the "rush to the middle ground" sometimes covers up
>unpleasant truths that need to be heard.
>
>
>Kay
This pro-feminist man isn't concerned at all about appearing "nasty"
or "unhelpful". I most certainly do not approve in any way of so-called
"feminine" (i.e., passivist) women. Nor do I approve of so-called
"masculine" men, when this so-called "masculinity" is defined as being
threatened by _real_ women (i.e., women who have brains, spines, guts,
and clits, and act like it). As far as any "rush to the middle ground"
is concerned, I'm proud to called an "extremist".
Sen...@no.mail
Gro...@step.off wrote:
>g...@sfu.ca (Allison Gau) wrote:
>:sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:
>:>(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>:>>
>:>>Ngs changed
>:>>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>:>>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>:>>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
>:> <everything snipped>
>:> OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man is
>:>a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
>:>contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex.
>:Good enough.
>:>If a man is a contemptible
>:>"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
>:>some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody
>:>works outside the home, nobody eats.
>:And if everybody works outside the home, then who takes care of the kids?
>Have you ever heard of day care?
You don't think a couple should ever make the decision to allow one of
them to stay home and raise their children? Does that make the
stay-home parent less of a worker than the person you'd pay to do the
same job, to take care of the child and household stuff?
Snipe
>
>Ngs changed
>
>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
>>: > The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his
>>: >career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't
>>: be
>>: >sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
>>: >supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those
>>: labors for
>>: >the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a
>>: chiseler.
>
>How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children? Can't be
>men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have
>women stay at home and not work outside the home. Per seems to have
>forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist,
>that women do it, so it is for men. To split this by sex is sexist.
>And so many anti feminists are blatently and self-righteously sexist
>it can make you sick.
>
The term 'sexist' I think is a naive term. I guess most of the animal
kingdom could be termed sexist if we followed your logic to the bitter end.
>[snip]
>>Hmmm.... am I understanding you correctly ... are you saying that women
>>who work as homemakers do not work for a living? Is that what you're
>>saying?? Maybe Fairman who isn't nutty would like to address this issue.
>So what do you think Fairman?
Isn't she just aching misinterpret the guy!
>Very common comment, raising children is not work. Men certainly
>would stoop to being "loafers" and doing it. Certainly running a
>household is just eating bon bons all day. Riight. Raising children
>is very hard work, and to parent-bash like that is exceedingly rude,
>thoughtless and worthy almost of cross posting to misc.kids so parents
>could flame you for your mindlessness. To a crisp as this is often
>discussed.
>
Just aching!!!
>I do think the time where one person staying home, with no kids, is
>past, and I am glad to see it go. But, of course, now we have a
>dearth of volunteers, as that was very commonly work homemakers had
>(but since it was not paid, it didn't 'count' and in general it seems
>men would not do it in anywhere near the number women do).
Give her a medal. Per ain't saying home-making it isn't worthy, or hard
work.
>But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
>like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
>You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
>bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
>because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
>totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
>men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
>some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
>ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
>are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
>time.
This is so deeply profound, it makes me want to weep. Per is talking about
fairness, nothing else. The petty damned arguments are incidental, but
feminists don't want to get together and work out a solution. They're like
any other dictators. IE: my way is right. You are wrong. Do it my way or
not all.
>However, a word of advice. Don't male bash. Be clear you mean some
>men. Men like your ex, say. Rich Payne blows this all the time, but
>none of the men here care. He goes from experience with his ex and
>some other women and states women as a whole are some form of bad,
>evil, whatever, it varies. Per has female bashed a few times himself
>and is completely of the opinion he is right and women are just like
>that. Thus it is ok to female bash because you can justify it by
>female bashing more and saying women are really all like that.
>Amazing But True: Per On Alt.feminism.
Neither he nor Rich are female bashing they're saying they've hit a wall.
With most guys one can reason. With feminists they are right and that's
that.
>The hypocracy is galling and can fuel anger that results in lashing
>out just as immaturely as those men did, but you get nowhere that way,
>or really you get as far as they do. And at as low a level. It isn't
>worth it. Repeat that as needed; it isnt worth stooping like that
>yourself. :-)
>
What the hell would you know about being a man, lady? If you deny a man his
expression then he is nothing. You're saying to him 'die.' Any man worth
his salt will fight even to the death and destroy as he was destroyed.
You wouldn't understand that. You can never understand that, With due
respect to the body you occupy, you are a woman..
>>AND you steven what makes you think I didn't work outside of the home?
>>Is that what Per told ya?
>
>Per seems always willing to assume things about people that fit his
>woman-bashing prejudices. Then if you state the truth, at least with
>me, I got called naive for posting personal info on the net. Pretty
>good scam, hm?
>>Why don't ya have a chat with my x-husband,
>>W. David Pierce, University of Alberta, Canada? He could set ya straight
>>tho' I don't think he'd talk to the likes a you fellas! Or ya could jest
>>read my posts ... I'm pretty sure that I wrote about working outside of
>>the home ...
>
>Oh, details. How naive of you, anyway. :-)
So yeah, your term, sexism doesn't apply to you. You're exempt.
>You also worked in the home, raising children. Barbara, if women
>don't work to end this devaluing of childrearing, not only will kids
>lose out, but many men will continue to shirk their share of it in
>marriges allowing them to continue to blithely think it isn't work.
>Clearly someone has been covering their butts to the nitty gritty work
>of childrearing --their wives.
Like I said, you're exempt. Probably because you're perfect.
>
>But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
>stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
>life) most. But you *will* alienate and drive away men who might have
>well been agreeable about many topics related to feminism. Always
>unwise, to be rude and mean and drive away the people who might have
>agreed otherwise. People like Per don't matter either way, his mind
>is made up, but not being rude seems, IMHO, a generally good idea
>anyway. Even to him, irritating and rude as he is.
When feminism first came along, I agreed, like most reasonable people. I'm
so far left of anarchy I'm out of sight, so I listened. But hey. I'm a
man, right. GUILTY, right. Feminists have made up a lot of people's minds.
Feministic arrogance and bullshit theory does it every day.
>>fessors at U of A make pretty good money but not enough ta
>>pay for competitive sports fer 3 children ... especially when one of those
>>sports is figure skating ... and I'm pretty sure that I mentioned running
>>my own business ...
>
>Details! :-)
Our hero can do business. I'm so impressed.
>
>>but Per's version of my life is more to yer liking
>>isn't it! Gives ya an opportunity to engage in woman-bashing ... after
>>all isn't that why yer in here??
Not woman bashing, Defence against a barrage of Feminist bullshit (DAABOFB)
>Well for the love of life, don't stoop to their level! It is obvious
>how many men here will reinterpret what you said and and change it,
>and when caught will beg off claiming "sarcasm" and "lack of a sense
>of humor in feminists". Be persistant about stopping female bashing.
>Quite simply, you are in a better position the less you male bash and
>the more you talk about men who do certain things, of which there are
>many or some but far from all.
I guess that paragraph means something?
>
>I didn't think you were worth talking to, because you come across as
>no better than these bitter, angry, feminists-hating woman-bashers
>(note, I am not confusing feminism with women. There are femininsts
>*haters* who may like some women but sure seem willing to bash all of
>them anyway) and I just thought, oh, great, a woman who is damaging
>the ability of feminists to reach the men who would listen.
>
Ever ask yourself why there are 'bitter, angry, feminist'bashers?
Is it because feminists were nice to the guys? Said hey 'let's talk about
improving the lot of humanity? No, feminists said, you're rotten muthas who
should die. Curiously enough dear, this upsets people.
>So stop it! Focus in reaching the men you can, pointing out the
>foibles of certain types of men of which your ex is one and try to
>focus your anger at changing things. I have a friend, in his 50's,
>who is stopping calling women girls and really has worked on using
>they as a sex neutral pronoun and seeing women are capable of things
>they were denied even the opportunity to try when he was growing up.
>He is also way more aware of gender role stereotyping and how he
>likely treats girls (real ones, ie small female children) differently
>from boys -- and he trying to *change* that! Male bashing would not
>have brought about this effect. His going off and talking to other
>men about these issues does more for feminism than trying to rebut the
>blatherings one feminist-hating female-basher here.
Yeah, he's sucking up to you. There's no other way than that except to
avoid you. If he calls you a pain in the arse bitch, he's libel, right.
>Make yourseslf worth talking to, by building up women and praising
>certain kinds of men and critiqueing others. Tossing in an occasional
>comment critiquing certain kinds of women is worth it too because,
>like men, women are not perfect. And you get to watch with amazement
>as some men go Yeah, the bitch, women do that, while they ignore their
>own sexism. Keeps me involved in feminism, let me tell ya.
>
Puke.
>Likewise, the issue of SAH Moms or SAH women, really, but also SAH
>Dads. There is real value in supporting someone who can do more
>because they don't need to worry about food, shelter, paying bills or
>much of day to day life with small chillren. Men who do this get a
>*lot* of shit tossed at them. I read the SAH Dads lists, and wow, the
>stories of male to male man-bashing... Loafers (and we are not talking
>shoes here) and wusses is the least of it. Women who do it are
>praised by certain religious groups (whome certain antifeminists thing
>are run by women. Hah.), but ignored when they get divorced (but
>blamed for wanting alimony).
They get shit tossed at them by feminists, I'll bet. And yeah, you're
explaining how damned tough you make it for men. Then you wonder why some
fellas crack and come out shooting.
>
>Many men made it clear the risk for staying at home and raising the
>children was not worth it becuase you get dumped, don't have the
>skills he had while you supported him and raised the both of yours
>children. No wonder they won't risk it when their sex practically
>defined it being a stupid thing to do. But it can work if the couple
>is up front about who is sacrificing what and why and expects what in
>return. Women who stay at home, and men who do, too, are WORKING.
>But in a job few in power in society value.
Again, by your own terms you're being SEXIST.
>
>Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing
>childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
>feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
>and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem
>to want to *keep* and other things) and get the same men here just as
>upset without being, in all honesty, stupid for falling for the
>temptation to male bash. :-)
>
Fellas, feminists don't know what men are. Don't take their shit.
I for one have a gut full.
>--
>| Feminism-the notion (apparently radical to some) that women are
people
Yeah everyone always knew that, dumbo, but what the F@#$ are feminists?
so...@deep.feet
Femi...@equals.hate wrote:
>Apparently what feminists mean when they say "everybody stop bashing,"
>what they really mean is "everybody, but women, stop bashing."
Wow. I'm overwhelmed, in awe. This Femi...@equals.hate person is
really profound. I wish *I'd* thought of something that deep.
Diane Mathews
In article <544h5u$d...@News.Dal.Ca> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero) writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
[snip even more]
>: -----
>: Personally, I am offended by bashing either gender, but women, like
>: men, have all styles of battle. Just as female bashing exists, so
>: does male bashing; what good does it do to only question the value
>: of one?
>: ...
>: Fighting
>: fire with fire is simply another way to fight; if you're going to
>: be critical, be critical of both.
>: -------
>So there is some sanity in here. Are you saying that you are willing to
>let me be who I be? to fight fire with fire if I so choose? What do we
>want women to be?
I snipped some of the above, and it's pretty clear what Fairman thinks.
Me, i don't know that fire w/ fire is always effective, though sometimes
it works. It's like training a cat, dog, horse, mate :-), co-workers,
parents... Fire is like punishment, sometimes it's appropriate but you
always have to worry about the aftershocks. There is always a reaction
to something that is forceful, regardless of where the force comes from.
For instance, you snap your dog's butt w/ the leash if it's too slow in
sitting down. Depending on the sensitivity of the dog, and how often
you do this, the dog eventually becomes afraid of airborne rope-like
things, so that you can no longer swing anything in your hand w/o your
dog cowering. That's kind of extreme, but really: people are the same.
Parents know this. That's *part* of the reason that new-fangled child-
raising doesn't have all that much corporal punishment. It works at
work, too: Punish your workers and you get resentment, minimal effort,
lack of attention to quality, etc.; where instead, by rewarding effort
you more often get the quality you want, "free" overtime, etc.
Then throw personality into the mix! Some folks can be bashed about the
head and shoulders w/ a 2x4', every day, for 30 years straight and finally
get a clue (not the whole thing, just a clue). Others can be given a
frown and cower in embarassment at how foolish they had been. THEN throw
in varying sensitivity on varying subjects. Home Improvement did a pretty
good one on this - Toolman just didn't get it when the wife left "subtle"
hints, but he could tell exactly how fast a car was going and how well
the engine was running just by the sound. People are *capable* of any
level of subtlety, sensitivity, strength, superiority, sliminess, sweetness,
in any of infinite subjects.
Is fire the best way to fight fire? Sometimes. That's why i'm glad that
there are people capable of doing so, because i'm not very good at it.
Fighting fire w/ fire only stops the fire (eventually), though. Nothing
really grows in a fire.
>IMO to live with a man is crazy-making! And research suggests that
>marriage for women is indeed an emotional hazard
I've read some research, it's dated and i don't remember it so don't
hold me to it. Single men were under the most danger, then came married
women, married men, and single women were the mentally most healthy. I
do believe that's changing. The "given" was that single men "couldn't"
talk to anyone, have an emotional release, so that's why they were so bad
off. No one really went any further than that in the study i read. Now,
i think, men are freer to actually make friends regardless of marital
status and are more emotionally self-sufficient. Cool!
>I used ta have men defining my reality for me ...
>then I had women defining my reality for me ... now I define my reality
>for me, thank you very much!!
Coolest.
>If Fairman, etc.
>wants to play Mother Tit To The World thas her/their business but it's
>not a gig I want! AND after listening to woman-bashing for half a century,
>if I want to engage in man-bashng I will!
Well, here's the thing. I could be wrong, mind you, but i think that
each person has something pretty valuable that most people around him/her
don't have. To maintain or improve society each person could play Mother
Tit to those around him/her on that one thing that s/he has that is so
valuable about that individual. Not that everyone will accept it, just
that it's offered.
>I'm for women only universities with women faculty ... men jest won't keep
>their mouths in park!
HAHAHA.
Seriously, though... I think that women-only and men-only institutions
are bandaid treatments, nothing more than reactive poultices, and because
they are reactive they will induce yet another reaction. Not that i want
to think of myself as a dullard, but i'd rather to be a part of dampening
the swing back and forth from one reaction to the next than be a part
of the reaction itself. To each her own.
>In another class with about 25 women
>and 1 man, not only the female students were deferring to this lone man
>but also the self-confident Assoc. Prof--female!
Thanks for the examples! Fairman, myself, and a few others have been
going on and on about how we need to change classrooms and teachers so
that boys don't dominate, how we need to make classrooms fair - and
look how much acculturation had occurred by the time youwere taking
these classes!
[men had their turn...]
I do get this attitude sometimes, though. I phrase it: Eat my dust.
That's for the ones who need a 2x4 for 30 years - i don't have time
for that. I turn the phrase on some women too.
--
FSDM #0.1/2 Komrade Snapperhead, 2nd Mate
My opinions; not my employer's opinions.
Hillel
In article <545clk$8...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Steven Malcolm Anderson <sm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> As a _feminist_, I far prefer Intolger's philosophy. Women ARE NOT
>weak, wimpy, passive "victims"!
I think that there is something you miss about Morgan and quite a few
older feminists. In the late 1960's, early 1970's, they had an
opportunity to change the world, for the better. They missed it.
Now they have a choice between admitting failure or claiming to
be powerless weak victims who have never had a chance.
Guess what choice they pick...
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <544bd5$5...@uruguay.earthlink.net> Femi...@equals.hate writes:
>The outrage is the WOMEN desert their duty when active duty looms.
When
>the ship goes down, women are the FIRST ones of the ship, THEN the
children,
>THEN the men.
_I_ say it should be EQUAL for both men _and_ women! TOTALLY ABOLISH
the ugly phrase "women and children"!
Men are forced into military duty, while women are "forced" to
>stay safely at home making bullets.
_I_ say it should be EQUAL for both men _and_ women!
Yet, women are the most violent segment
>of our society. Violence must be encoded into women's genes in the
form of
>estrogen poisoning. If only we could find a cure.
Intolgerism again! _If_ estrogen is what causes women to be violent,
then obviously those women who are cowards and pacifists (and male ones
too, perhaps) could use a good deal more of it, so they will go out and
_fight_. I don't believe it's genetic at all, though. Like men, women
_choose_ to fight or not. I give credit where credit is due and blame
where blame is due.
Steven Malcolm Anderson
<everything snipped>
As a feminist, I say this: Women who _earn_ their own money in
so-called "male" occupations should not be taxed to pay welfare mothers
to stay home and have babies.
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <543kep$5...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>In article <541mst$s...@News.Dal.Ca>,
>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>I do not think the men in here are representative
>>of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general!
>
>
>If the men here were a good sample of the men in general then the
>libertarian party could get much more than 4% of the votes...
>
>IMO a large minority of the men on the net wants the government off
>their, and everybody's else, backs.
I sure as hell do!
>Most feminists, on and off the net, want to use the government power
>to enforce their "moral" values.
So do "pro-family" anti-feminists.
>That's the basic conflict between the two groups.
Hillel
##Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise that
##the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. ...
In article <5449c8$i...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Ed Falk <fa...@peregrine.eng.sun.com> wrote:
>Do you have any of the CFV's archived by any chance? *My* recollection
>is just the opposite. Soc.feminism was created to get away from the
>constant infantile "Feminism bad, no feminism good" arguments.
I don't have the CFV on-line, but you can check the newusers group.
Soc.feminism is defined there as:
@ Soc.feminism is a moderated newsgroup for the discussion of feminist
@ issues. Both men and women are encouraged to post to it and discussion
@ is not limited to the pro-feminist viewpoint.
>Alt.feminism was created to give the anti-feminists a place to do their
>whining so the grownups could have a real discussion in peace and
>quiet.
So why do feminists try to take it over?
Why is not their moderated, by feminists, newsgroup good enough for them?
Hillel
##Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise
##the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. After it was
##created
##the moderators ignored the guide lines and rejected quite a few anti-
##feminist articles but let most feminist articles pass.
##When we (anti--feminists) got tired of that we created an un-moderated
##news group, alt.feminism, for those of us who wanted a forum where all
##opinions can be posted.
In article <54445b$i...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Robin E. Cook <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Who's this "we"? Checking the FAQ, the forum is clearly established
>for discussing feminism. Why antifeminists would form such a newsgroup
>is beyond me.
Because we want an open debate, not a support group.
>Hillel's explanation is fishy to me. It's almost like the local
>chapter of the KKK forming an alt.civil-rights newsgroup.
Try to find out what's wrong in your analogy.
Alan Madsen
: As a feminist, I say this: Women who _earn_ their own money in
: so-called "male" occupations should not be taxed to pay welfare mothers
: to stay home and have babies.
does that mean that welfare is entirely without merit...?
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <5453co$5...@nicaragua.earthlink.net> Gro...@step.off writes:
>
>g...@sfu.ca (Allison Gau) wrote:
>
>:sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:
>
>:>(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>:>>
>:>>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>:>>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>:>>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per)
writes:
>
>:> OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man
is
>:>a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
>:>contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex.
>
>:Good enough.
>
>:>If a man is a contemptible
>:>"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is
_not_
>:>some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If
nobody
>:>works outside the home, nobody eats.
>
>:And if everybody works outside the home, then who takes care of the
kids?
>
>Have you ever heard of day care?
Also contraception.
>:>If a man is a noble hero because
>:>he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a
noble
>:>heroine if she does the same. If a man is a contemptible coward if
he
>:>shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc..
>
>:That's all very nice and well, assuming that women have equal
opportunity
>:to work as a fire-fighter or soldier.
>
>That's all very nice and well, assuming that men have equal
opportunity to
>NOT work as a soldier. Personally, I think women who become pregnant
>just prior to active duty should be court martialled for desertion of
duty.
I agree with that!
Hillel
##Most feminists, on and off the net, want to use the government power
##to enforce their "moral" values.
In article <544g0j$4...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> What portion of "the people" do not want to use govt. power
> to enforce their moral values?
All I want the government to do is to protect people's body and property
from harm and enforce contracts. I don't want it to regulate the sex
lives of other people, I don't want it to "tax and spend" large amounts of
money, I don't want it to run a Ponzi scheme like social security, I don't
want it to regulate drugs. Unlike you, my list of what I don't want the
government to do is pretty long.
> Everyone has an agenda;
And a part of my agenda is that I don't want the government to
enforce my agenda...
> if you don't like the feminist agenda just say so; we don't have
> fewer rights than you to influence our govt. by voting, and
> participating in the process.
Let's give a couple of definitions:
@A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
@A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.
@A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and
@the sheep are armed.
@Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into
@voting for a Democracy...
@Written by:"Bill K." <xtr10...@xtra.co.nz>
I want a Constitutional Republic.
Lefty, like most feminists, is against that. They really like the federal
government and the ways it enforced their "moral" values. Voting to tax
other people to pay for their ideals, and enforcing other people to live
by their "moral" values is part of their agenda, and they need the
Federal Government for that.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to
see it tried on him personally." -- A. Lincoln
Stuart Birks
Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: As a feminist, I say this: Women who _earn_ their own money in
: so-called "male" occupations should not be taxed to pay welfare mothers
: to stay home and have babies.
and what about men who earn their own money in so-called "male"
occupations?
and what about men who earn their own money in so-called "female"
occupations?
and what about women who earn their own money in so-called "female"
occupations?
and what about any of these four groups being taxed to pay welfare to
fathers who stay home and care for their children?
Could you, as a self-professed feminist, give us the/your view on these?
Thanks,
Stuart
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <545fsc$e...@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com> dia...@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
writes:
>
>In article <544jm4$7...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>
sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:
>>
>> OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man
is
>>a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
contemptible
>>"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
>>some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If
nobody
>>he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a
noble
>>heroine if she does the same. If a man is a contemptible coward if he
>>shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc..
>>part of that anybody doesn't understand?
>
>Hear, hear! And i liked the way you phrased much of that.
>
>The military one is the one that bothers me the most. I'm *guessing*
>that, just like for men on other issues, it just hasn't *occured* to
>women that they could participate until recently (time frame = 100
>years). I don't know much about it, other than it's usually not so
>simple as "just signing up." When women have to be subjected to the
>same kind of treatment that the enemy's wives are subjected to, simply
>by being in the military, then we're still all screwed up. When women
>aren't allowed in the military, then we're all screwed up. What do we
>do about the draft, though? I don't know. I can't, personally, blame
>anyone for not wanting to go to war; but that has nothing to do w/
>women (currently) being exempt from being drafted.
>
>I don't know what all the barriers are to women in the military. It
>seems that the National Guard takes about anyone. Various military
>academies try to be more selective. Right now we have no (reason for)
>the draft so that's not an issue (what would it take to change that?
>what are the barriers?)
I say there should be _no_ barriers whatever to military service on
the basis of sex or sexual preferences. I prefer a voluntary,
professional army, but should a draft prove necessary, _everybody_ gets
drafted. As for whom I would consider contemptible cowards, I would
most definitely consider _all_ those women who opposed the ERA in order
to avoid being drafted to be in that reprehensible category.
>--
>FSDM #0.1/2 Komrade Snapperhead, 2nd Mate
>
>My opinions; not my employer's opinions.
>
--
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <54501a$l...@morgoth.sfu.ca> g...@sfu.ca (Allison Gau) writes:
>
>sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:
>
>>(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>>>
>>>Ngs changed
>>>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>> <everything snipped>
>
>> OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man
is
>>a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
>>contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex.
>
>Good enough.
>
>>If a man is a contemptible
>>"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
>>some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If
nobody
>>works outside the home, nobody eats.
>
>And if everybody works outside the home, then who takes care of the
kids?
>Either one takes care of the kids or the couple PAYS someone to take
care
>of the kids (and likewise, the housework).
Fine, as long as: 1. it's _totally equal_ as to whether the man or the
woman works/stays home and 2. the one who stays home isn't praised as
some sort of warm-hearted "nurturing" saint while the one who goes out
and earns the money is scorned as some sort of cold, unfeeling monster.
Also: Don't assume that they necessarily have or want kids in the
first place. For those who want them, fine. But a lot of men _and_
women do just as fine without them.
>>If a man is a noble hero because
>>he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a
noble
>>heroine if she does the same. If a man is a contemptible coward if he
>>shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc..
>
>That's all very nice and well, assuming that women have equal
opportunity
>to work as a fire-fighter or soldier.
Absolutely! Women _must_ have equal opportunity in _all_ so-called
"male" occupations.
>>_That_, and nothing less, is what _I_ mean by feminism. Is there any
>>part of that anybody doesn't understand?
>>--
>>sm...@ix.netcom.com
>>"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
>> wanting to be by oneself,
>> being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich
Nietzsche
>Says the Anarchist ...
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>Allison Gau (g...@sfu.ca) >> Cole's Law:
>School of Engineering Science >>
>Simon Fraser University >> Thinly sliced cabbage.
>Burnaby, BC >>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Steven Malcolm Anderson
Good post!
>:--
>:---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>:Allison Gau (g...@sfu.ca) >> Cole's Law:
>:School of Engineering Science >>
>:Simon Fraser University >> Thinly sliced cabbage.
>:Burnaby, BC >>
>:---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>:cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>
>:[Bits and pieces of Carolyn's post, edited to keep size down]
>:[Also note that the first chunk is actually located much farther
>: down in the original post]
>
>:>I didn't think you were worth talking to, because you come across as
>:>no better than these bitter, agnry, feminists-hating woman-bashers
>:>(note, I am not confusing feminism with women. There are femininsts
>:>*haters* who may like some women but sure seem willing to bash all
of
>:>them) and I just thought, oh, great, a woman who is damaging the
>:>ability of feminists to reach the men who would listen.
>
>:--
>:>But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
>:>like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
>:>You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
>:>bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is
rude
>:>because you label all for the idiocy of the few.
>
>:>However, a word of advice. Don't male bash. Be clear you mean some
>:>men.
>
>:>The hypocracy is galling and can fuel anger that results in lashing
>:>out just as immaturely as the men did, but you get nowhere that way,
>:>or really you get as far as they do. And at as low a level. It
isn't
>:>worth it.
>
>:>But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
>:>stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be
to
>:>life) most.
>
>:>Well for the love of life, don't stoop to their level! It is
obvious
>:>how many men here will reinterpret what you said and and change it,
>:>and when caught will beg off claiming "sarcasm" and "lack of a sense
>:>of humor in feminists".
>
>:>So stop it! Focus in reaching the men you can, pointing out the
>:>foibles of certain types of men of which your ex is one and try to
>:>focus your anger at changing things.
>
>:>Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing
>:>childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
>:>feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
>:>and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem
>:>to want to *keep* and others) men just as upset without being, in
all
>:>honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-)
>
>
>
--
Barbara Amero
545bf5$c...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
Distribution:
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <544h5u$d...@News.Dal.Ca> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero)
: writes:
: >
: >Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In <redhawk-ya0230600...@news.walrus.com>
: >: red...@walrus.com (Sean C) writes:
: >: >
: >: >In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU>,
: >: cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
: >: >(Carolyn Jean Fairman) wrote:
: >>
: -------
: I think that female-only schools are not in the "long-term" best
: interests of women or society. They may, indeed, provide some
: short-term benefits in allowing women to compete in an enviornment
: that is less hostile to them, but do you really think that that
: will (long term) prepare them for the real world? I prefer an
: inclusive enrollment.
: --------
Certainly in an ideal society, I would prefer an inclusive enrollment ...
but this is far from an ideal society. I arrived at that univeristy--85%
female students; 60% female faculty--lacking an appreciation of the value
of female academics in the role of creating and disseminating knowledge
(I can't imagine why!). An obvious ramification of such an attitude, for me,
is that in assigning no value to the opinions or knowledge of female
academics, I assigned no value to myself in this respect. AND believe me
that took some time to change. Now it would be nice if I could say that
such is symptomatic of women my age, with a similar life experience. BUT
many of the young women had less of a voice then I ... and it was painful
to watch. It is hard for me to say if the young women in this almost
exclusively female learning environment would be prepared for the 'real
world', since I'd already been in the 'real world' for a long time. (Or
was I?)
Research, however, suggests that women benefit from single-sex education at
both the high-school and university level. The past President was a
graduate of Wellesley College, a women's university in the U.S. She
also went to Yale, is a respected economist who also had management jobs
at Inco Ltd. and Shell Canada ... served on a number of different boards
and so on. One study reported that girls usually go on to excellent
universities where they study more law, medicine, science and math than
girls who had attended co-educational schools. Their self-esteem is higher,
their taste for leadership is stronger. As Parr-Johnston said, the women
were linked to role models and had good peer support. The mission of this
university I attended is to help women, especially older women, native
women, women with children, women whose educations have been derailed by
life. About 62% are part-time mature students ... not all old ones like me...
the older women had much to offer the younger students. Certainly, we were
not without our complaints ... at times we felt silenced by certain
professors, etc. Anyway to try and end this, the bottom line is that
I would not have done so well in an 'inclusive' environment. AND I think
that such an experience does indeed give women the self-esteem that many
are so lacking. Also I'm not sure exactly what you mean by being prepared
for the 'real world'. Does sitting in class with men and having a male
prof dish out 'sexist' research with no voices there to challenge him
prepare women for the 'real world'? In Women's Studies students are
taught how to challege such research ... and to challenge feminism as well
... at least such was my experience.
: It>started as an academy established by the Sisters of Charity in
: 1873. Men>were first admitted in 1967. Today, women represent 85% of
: the enrollment>... I would like to see that 100% In a women's studies
: class with over>50 women and 3 men, the men jest wouldn't shut up ...
: one man in particularwho was simply auditing the course ... the Prof
: had to take him aside and>tell him not to answer her questions.
: ------
: Well, if people were able to "listen" as well as speak, the world
: might indeed be a better place, but I'm not really sure that the
: solution chosen was right. It might have been better for your
: instructor to place time limits on speaking so that everyone who
: wanted to speak would have had a chance, i.e. every student gets
: to contribute twice a week. A gender neutral managment of a
: class is more equitable than placing a "gag order" on men only.
: ------
This man was *auditing* the course, there to "listen" ... not to hog class
time or even use it to speak out. The Prof did not put a "gag order" on the
other 2 men in the class. BUT I don't think you get the picture ... this
was Women's Studies 100 and the Prof did not have to place time limits
on speaking so that everyone would get a chance to speak ... women are
reluctant to speak!!
: In another class with about 25 women>and 1 man, not only the female
: students were deferring to this lone man>but also the self-confident
: Assoc. Prof--female! And to top it off the>man who was auditing that
: class and told ta shut up approached me wanting>to know where the
: Women's Studies Society Club meets ... he wants ta help
: >women ... I told him the best way for him ta help women is to stop
: being>the first one ta the microphone like the rest of the damn men!
: -----
: I used to teach kindergarten, and believe me, there are other
: ways of handling over-aggresiveness in the classroom. Exclusion
: is not the answer.
: ------
Well we weren't in kindergarten ... and what I'm talking about is not
a case of over-aggressiveness with the lone man ... I'm talking about women
deferring to men! and not just the women but a fessor! Doesn't that happen
wherever you're from??
And what are your ideas on sloving problems in co-educational schools,
including over-aggressiveness?
snip
: Lefty
Barbara
Me
>>
>>:I found your remarks to be a bit patronizing. Barbara doesn't even
>pretend
>>:to speak for all women,
If she does not pretend to speak for all women then she must have a different attitude because
when she touts here anti-male views because in NS.GENERAL she sure does try to speak for all
women...
Jay Anderson
In article <545j0s$7...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> so...@deep.feet writes:
>Femi...@equals.hate wrote:
While I will admit I've had a few chuckles over the names you two
are taking, the truth is this gets old very fast.
How about the Earthlink guy choosing and keeping one name and you
doing the same?
Jay
Diane Mathews
In article <544jm4$7...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:
>
>a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
>"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
>some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody
>he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a noble
>heroine if she does the same. If a man is a contemptible coward if he
>shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc..
>part of that anybody doesn't understand?
Hear, hear! And i liked the way you phrased much of that.
The military one is the one that bothers me the most. I'm *guessing*
that, just like for men on other issues, it just hasn't *occured* to
women that they could participate until recently (time frame = 100
years). I don't know much about it, other than it's usually not so
simple as "just signing up." When women have to be subjected to the
same kind of treatment that the enemy's wives are subjected to, simply
by being in the military, then we're still all screwed up. When women
aren't allowed in the military, then we're all screwed up. What do we
do about the draft, though? I don't know. I can't, personally, blame
anyone for not wanting to go to war; but that has nothing to do w/
women (currently) being exempt from being drafted.
I don't know what all the barriers are to women in the military. It
seems that the National Guard takes about anyone. Various military
academies try to be more selective. Right now we have no (reason for)
the draft so that's not an issue (what would it take to change that?
what are the barriers?)
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <546467$5...@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz> Stuart Birks
>: so-called "male" occupations should not be taxed to pay welfare
mothers
>: to stay home and have babies.
>
>and what about men who earn their own money in so-called "male"
>occupations?
Same.
>and what about men who earn their own money in so-called "female"
>occupations?
Same.
>and what about women who earn their own money in so-called "female"
>occupations?
Same.
>and what about any of these four groups being taxed to pay welfare to
>fathers who stay home and care for their children?
Same.
>Could you, as a self-professed feminist, give us the/your view on
these?
_My_ view. I don't know what "the" view means.
>Thanks,
>
>Stuart
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <545khr$l...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>In article <545clk$8...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Steven Malcolm Anderson <sm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> As a _feminist_, I far prefer Intolger's philosophy. Women ARE NOT
>>weak, wimpy, passive "victims"!
>
>I think that there is something you miss about Morgan and quite a few
>older feminists. In the late 1960's, early 1970's, they had an
>opportunity to change the world, for the better. They missed it.
They blew it _big time_. I agree on that.
>Now they have a choice between admitting failure or claiming to
>be powerless weak victims who have never had a chance.
>
>Guess what choice they pick...
I know _all too well_. And I'd rather take stychnine than pick the
choice _they_ did. No, I say give me Intolger and his estrogen-poison
theory over _that_! A thousand times over _that_!!
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <543trn$8...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>##Most feminists, on and off the net, want to use the government power
>##to enforce their "moral" values.
-----
What portion of "the people" do not want to use govt. power
to enforce their moral values? Everyone has an agenda; if
you don't like the feminist agenda just say so; we don't have
fewer rights than you to influence our govt. by voting, and
participating in the process.
-----
>See the kind of laws that the feminist representatives and the
>feminists on the net support.
>
>"Violence Against Women Act," anti-porno laws, anti-prostitution
>laws, affirmative action, choice for women & no choice for men,
>no federal money for men-only colleges (e.g. VMI), federal money
>for women-only colleges (e.g. Mills college), priority for women
>in custody and divorce; all those are feminist issues.
-----
I am a feminist and you have no way of knowing how I would
vote on many of these issues. Not only that, but my best
friend, who is also a "feminist" would vote differently from
me on several of these same issues. I think you know how
I would vote of c4m :]
-----
>
>All those actions require coercion by the government, and most
feminist>representatives support at least some of them. On the net,
you can>see how "choice for men" draws a lot of feminist fire, but very
>little feminist support.
-----
hahahaha! There's good reason for that, but please don't give
feminists ALL THE CREDIT. After all there is also the Republican
party, the Democrats, the moral majority, the Kristian Koalition,
ACES, thinking people who love children, etc. etc. etc....in fact,
it is my _guess_ that you can't name even one politician above,
say assemblyperson, that would support c4m; could it be that there
is a reason for that?
Lefty
Diane Mathews
In article <5465rj$f...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:
> I say there should be _no_ barriers whatever to military service on
>the basis of sex or sexual preferences. I prefer a voluntary,
>professional army, but should a draft prove necessary, _everybody_ gets
>drafted. As for whom I would consider contemptible cowards, I would
>most definitely consider _all_ those women who opposed the ERA in order
>to avoid being drafted to be in that reprehensible category.
Fine. But what *are* the barriers? We can't as easily bring them down
if we don't know what they are. Why don't some men want women in the
military? Why don't we teach girls war games?
Gerry Harbison
Barbara Amero wrote:
> Research, however, suggests that women benefit from single-sex education at
> both the high-school and university level. The past President was a
> graduate of Wellesley College, a women's university in the U.S. She
> also went to Yale, is a respected economist who also had management jobs
> at Inco Ltd. and Shell Canada ... served on a number of different boards
> and so on. One study reported that girls usually go on to excellent
> universities where they study more law, medicine, science and math than
> girls who had attended co-educational schools. Their self-esteem is higher,
> their taste for leadership is stronger. As Parr-Johnston said, the women
> were linked to role models and had good peer support.
Yeah, it all makes sense. Trouble is, the evidence for it is phoney.
The data that show that women educated in women's colleges are more
successful than women educated in co-ed schools, starting with Tindall's
original paper, ignore the fact that women who attend women's colleges
in general come from a very different socioeconomic background than
womnen who attend coeducational schools. Wellesley, Mount Holyoke, Bryn
Mawr, etc are *very* expensive places to attend, and have little in the
way of financial aid or scholarships to hand out. On the other hand,
most women at coeducational schools are at public unicersities (like
this one), with low tuition and expenses. Comparing the two populations
is comparing apples and oranges.
If you wish to compare Granny Smiths and Macintoshes, you should compare
women's colleges with coeducational private colleges, such as Oberlin or
Swarthmore. As Lisa Baker's book on the 'Seven Sisters' points out, that
comparison is *unfavorable* to women's colleges - more women and
coeducational private institutions take science, more go on to
traditionally male occupations, the facilities for doing traditionally
male things are better, etc.. Even women's sports facilities are better
at coeducational schools: Title IX, which mandates that women be given
equal opportunities to men in sports, has greatly raised the quality of
women's athletics in coed schools, but does not apply to single-sex
institutions.
Of course, I'm assuming that people who plug women's colleges have the
motive of trying to help women, rather than playing the usual silly game
of 'No boyz allowed'. That's a hell of an assumption, come to think of
it.
--
Gerry Harbison mailto:ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu
http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/harbison_group/harbison.html
"They are trying to make some people feel good by making other people
feel bad, and if I were a boy, I'd move to New Guinea."
-- Sadie Stein, an eighth grader from New York, on Take Your Daughter To
Work Day.
Barbara Amero
Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
: >Jay Anderson (ande...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >:cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
: >: >
: >: >But, Barbara,
: >
: >Hmmm...... thas what my x-husband used ta call me ... thought my name was
: >Butbarbara ...... always leary when addressed as such!
: If you agree with soemthing someone states and yet have a profound
: dislike of other things that person states, /but/ is the term to
: separate them.
: You figure it out!
Yer startin' ta annoy me Fairman ... SPEAK FER YOURSELF! speak in the first
person! If *I* say But so and so, 9 times outta 10 so and so is gonna get a
lecture. If someone says to me But Barbara, 9 times outta 10 Barbara is gonna
get a lecture ... jest like yer patronizing lecture/post!
snip
: >: Yes. Even we Martinets - sorry, private joke - agree that many
: >: of the guys you see on these ngs and in certain mailing lists are
: >: not representative of men in general.
: >
: >: Thank the goddess - no, not you, Marg! :-)
: >
: >: Jay
: >
: >Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that
: >I disagree with you ...
: *But* you replied anyway. You are disagreeing with what? That male
: bashing is wrong? That it feeds posters like Per and lets them ignore
: their own female bashing to pick on you instead? That you are
: blaming the whole for the idiocy of a few?
>Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that
>I disagree with you ...
*Butfairman* you're not bein' a 'fair man' (are ya a man?) ... ya split
me post ta suit ya! I *clearly* stated what I disagreed with!!!
The following is what I posted!!
Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that
I disagree with you ... I do not think the men in here are representative
of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! And
goddess ain't gonna change that!
"you" is referring to Jay ... the poster I am responding to!
I was not responding to *your* post!
Can "you figure it out"?
snip
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca)
{o o} http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head.-Sally Kempton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Sen...@no.mail
EDI...@npvm.newpaltz.edu (Bill Edison) wrote:
>In article <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU.
>cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>
>.
>.Ngs changed
>.
>.Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca. wrote:
>..Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>..: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com. PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
>..: <snipped.
>.How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children?
Traditional should be an alternative that informed people can choose
of their own free will if it suits them.
>Can't be
>.men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have
>.nothing against demanding women do it. The Mormon Elders just demanded
>.women stay at home and not work outside the home. Per seems to have
>.forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist,
>.because if men are loafers for that work, so are women. If it is good
>.that women do it, so it is for men. To split this by sex is sexist.
>.And so many anti feminists are blatently and self-righteously sexist
>.it can make you sick.
>
>Sick is right! If you're going to dogmatically say that women are the
> only ones who care for children then you are sadly stuck with having
> to explain why those children are raised to become *sexists*. Maybe
> such a sad set of circumstances could be avoided by having men raise
> them.
>
The children do not necessarily become sexists because women are
raising them. Perhaps that happens when men surrender good parenting
and disengage themselves from the family. Maybe it happens when a
child is hurt by one parent's apparent lack of interest. Maybe your
definition of sexism is flawed. Maybe children learn sexism from other
children. Maybe this is the best possible arrangement and would only
be made worse by single-male parenting. There are loads of
possibilities which is only to say, your syllogism doesn't work.
>.>.[snip]
>..Hmmm.... am I understanding you correctly ... are you saying that women
>..who work as homemakers do not work for a living? Is that what you're
>..saying?? Maybe Fairman who isn't nutty would like to address this issue.
>..So what do you think Fairman?
>.
>.Very common comment, raising children is not work. Men certainly
>.would stoop to being "loafers" and doing it. Certainly running a
>.household is just eating bon bons all day. Riight. Raising children
>.is very hard work, and to parent-bash like that is exceedingly rude,
It's not just work. It is one of the most important jobs in society.
>.thoughtless and worthy almost of cross posting to misc.kids so parents
>.could flame you for your mindlessness. To a crisp as this is often
>.discussed.
>
Mark Evans
Allison Gau (g...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:
:
: >(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
: >>
: >>Ngs changed
: >>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
: > OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man is
: >a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
: >contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex.
: Good enough.
:
: >If a man is a contemptible
: >"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
: >some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody
: >works outside the home, nobody eats.
: And if everybody works outside the home, then who takes care of the kids?
Do people always have to work at the same time? Do schools not exist.
: Either one takes care of the kids or the couple PAYS someone to take care
: of the kids (and likewise, the housework).
You are assuming a "family" paradigm based arround a couple, this is
a) not the only possible way to do it, b) not the way humans have done
things for most of their existance.
Mark Evans
: a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
: "bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
: some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody
: he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a noble
: shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc..
: _That_, and nothing less, is what _I_ mean by feminism. Is there any
: part of that anybody doesn't understand?
If you wish to call yourself "feminist" you will have an uphill
struggle, since other people who are more vocal and powerfull
use the same term to mean something completely different
(in somecases directly opposite) to what you mean by it.
Carolyn Jean Fairman
Zenoink <zen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:>>Three, male bashing is wrong.
>>
>>>But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and
>>>stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be
>>>to
>>>life) most.
>
>I would agree it is a good idea not to let the goats get too much
>attention; they tend to butt all the more when they do.
<sigh> Too true.
>But, you know, I really do not get the impression that Barabara Amero's
>posts bashed men in general. Certainly she was being sarcastic about
>the anti-woman values embraced by the people to whom she replied, but
>she didn't seem to say this was something that applied across the
>board.
I definitely found she male bashed as badly as Per will female bash.
She generalized and just wrote 'men' not some men, or men like her ex,
as bad as the anti feminists do. Both are wrong approaches.
>To take things one step further in this thread, should we really be so
>defensive? I am concerned that pro-feminists here are too concerned
>about appearing "nasty" or "unhelpful" or (dare I say it?) appearing
>not to approve of "feminine" women and "masculine" men.
Feminine or masculine women, I don't care; feminism or masculine men,
I don't care. As long as it was chosen as respects the choices of
others, whatever.
Being nasty is unwise. UNhelpful is another topic. I mean, the anti-
feminists who will strip context from someone's writing to bash them
for something they clearly had not meant, *that* is unhelpful.
Especially if they fail to apologize for it.
>What I would call the "rush to the middle ground" sometimes covers up
>unpleasant truths that need to be heard.
One can list unpleasant truths without being vicious about it, because
unpleasant truths will still tend only to aply to those who apply
them. Tossing in a whole sex, about half the human race, plus or
minus a few, is inaccurate. And, yes, you simply give the
anti-feminists a chance to bash women and then complain about you
bashing men. Lose-lose.
I think it perfectly reasonable to be able to deal with truths of
sexism without being mean, bashing a whole sex or generally going on
as nastily as I have seen in some posts from Amero, and, as well, from
anti-feminsts here. Again, for the equally nasty responses she gets,
from the bad experience she received from her ex, I can understand
being peeved at certain types of people, some of them men in this
case. That is not, by the nature of my syntax and intent, bashing men
as men, as male humans. It is dealing with the unpleasant truth that
some people, in this disucssion of Amero's male ones, can be jerks.
By talking about why they end up this way, methods by which other men
and women, even, contribute to a society where this is acceptable we
can still deal with tough things while not bashing those other people,
some of them, men, who do not at all fit this characterization.
Make sense?
--
| Feminism-the notion (apparently radical to some) that women are people
|\O/| ===If equality is viewed as a loss, what does== Carolyn
| _ | ===that tell you about the previous situation?== Fairman
|/ \| http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~cfairman/ or /Humanists/
Mark Evans
Gro...@step.off wrote:
:
: :That's all very nice and well, assuming that women have equal opportunity
: :to work as a fire-fighter or soldier.
: That's all very nice and well, assuming that men have equal opportunity to
: NOT work as a soldier. Personally, I think women who become pregnant
: just prior to active duty should be court martialled for desertion of duty.
Surely ALL soldiers should be using contraception.
Barbara Amero
Zenoink (zen...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <andersonD...@netcom.com> ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson)
: writes:
: >
: >In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
: (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
snip
Zenoink wrote:
: I would agree it is a good idea not to let the goats get too much
: attention; they tend to butt all the more when they do.
Hmmm....on the other hand, give 'em enuf rope and they'll hang themselves.
: But, you know, I really do not get the impression that Barabara Amero's
: posts bashed men in general. Certainly she was being sarcastic about
: the anti-woman values embraced by the people to whom she replied, but
: she didn't seem to say this was something that applied across the
: board.
Well I'd say my posts bashed men in general but not ALL men ... now that
may sound like a contradiction in terms ... but it makes sense to me.
As I wrote I do not think the fellas in here are representative of ALL
men but they are representative of men in general. I know that in general
can mean applicable to the whole but it can also mean applicable to the
majority of individuals involved. And you're right my sarcasm about the
anti-woman values embraced by the people to whom I replied are not applied
across the board. I haven't quite reached Lefty's stage where I can say
that some women have every right to be whatever that is as long as they
don't scare the animals. (or has she?) On one hand I can be *very* tolerant
but there are some women's views I just can't tolerate.
: To take things one step further in this thread, should we really be so
: defensive? I am concerned that pro-feminists here are too concerned
: about appearing "nasty" or "unhelpful" or (dare I say it?) appearing
: not to approve of "feminine" women and "masculine" men.
And to take things one step further, I am wondering what is meant by
pro-feminists in here ... does this mean all kinds of feminists ...
having just jumped feet or mouth first whatever I have no idea what the
feminist views are in here other than posters keep talking about equality.
: What I would call the "rush to the middle ground" sometimes covers up
: unpleasant truths that need to be heard.
Thas one of my complaints about some feminists ... they'd rather cover
up unpleasant truths that need to be heard.
: Kay
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)
{o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------------------------------------------
"... the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."
---------------------------------------------------- Audre Lorde
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Barbara Amero
Bill Edison (EDI...@npvm.newpaltz.edu) wrote:
: In article <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU.
: cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
:
: .
: .Ngs changed
: .
: .Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca. wrote:
: ..Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: ..: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com. PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
: ..: <snipped.
: ..: .career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't
: ..: be
: ..: .sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
: ..: .supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those
: ..: labors for
: ..: .the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a
: ..: chiseler.
: .
: .How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children? Can't be
: .men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have
: .nothing against demanding women do it. The Mormon Elders just demanded
: .women stay at home and not work outside the home. Per seems to have
: .forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist,
: .because if men are loafers for that work, so are women. If it is good
: .that women do it, so it is for men. To split this by sex is sexist.
: .And so many anti feminists are blatently and self-righteously sexist
: .it can make you sick.
:
: Sick is right! If you're going to dogmatically say that women are the
: only ones who care for children then you are sadly stuck with having
: to explain why those children are raised to become *sexists*. Maybe
: such a sad set of circumstances could be avoided by having men raise
: them.
Well thas a silly comment ... hardly are mother's soley responsible for
socializing children ... what about schools, churches, community .....
snip
Barbara Amero
Alan Madsen (ama...@dorsai.org) wrote:
: Barbara Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
: <snip>
: : AND again I have not met a feminist who does not engage in male-bashing!
: just how many feminists have you met...?
From: ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male bashing as bad as female bashing; both stupid Re: Barbara Ame
Barbara Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
<snip>
: AND again I have not met a feminist who does not engage in male-bashing!
just how many feminists have you met...?
dunno .... been around a half century, spent 3 years in Women's Studies
at a women's university ... so I dare say tis a few BUT does it matter
how many? even if it was only 2 that wouldn't invalidate my statement,
would it?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca)
{o o} http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
[The academic] world does not look favorably upon serious dissidents from
the status quo--especially if such dissidents are brash enough to live
their beliefs (as feminism requires). -Jo Freeman
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Robin E. Cook
In <545qb0$n...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>##Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise
>##that
>##the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. After it was
>##created
>##the moderators ignored the guide lines and rejected quite a few
anti-
>##feminist articles but let most feminist articles pass.
>##When we (anti--feminists) got tired of that we created an
un-moderated
>##news group, alt.feminism, for those of us who wanted a forum where
all
>##opinions can be posted.
>
>In article <54445b$i...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>Robin E. Cook <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Who's this "we"? Checking the FAQ, the forum is clearly established
>>for discussing feminism. Why antifeminists would form such a
newsgroup
>>is beyond me.
>
>Because we want an open debate, not a support group.
But an antifeminist group entitled alt.feminism? That's a misnomer.
Why not call it alt.antifeminism? Your logic does not make sense here.
Furthermore, the FAQ makes no mention of antifeminists being involved
in the creation of alt.fem, and the soc.feminism FAQ doesn't mention
antifeminists either; it only mentions that the people who objected to
the moderated format created alt.feminism.
Strangely enough, you antifems seem to be crying out for a support
group with almost every post. Me, I'd come here for open debate,
posted some innocuous little critique of antifeminists (something about
confusing the messenger with the message) and got some response about
how to support NOW was to support bigotry and that all feminists were
bigots because a few feminists were bigots. Something like that.
Besides, isn't this Talk-Man supposed to be moderated?
>
>>Hillel's explanation is fishy to me. It's almost like the local
>>chapter of the KKK forming an alt.civil-rights newsgroup.
>
>Try to find out what's wrong in your analogy.
>
I tried and I couldn't. The KKK would not want to spend their time
debating civil rights; they'd prefer to send all the blacks back to
Africa and get rid of all them evil Jews who are controlling Hollywood
and the government.
Similarly, Anglophobes would not create an alt.music.oasis newsgroup
and homophobes would not create an alt.gay-rights newsgroup.
Robin E. Cook
In <545pj5$n...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>##Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise
>##the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. ...
>
>In article <5449c8$i...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
>Ed Falk <fa...@peregrine.eng.sun.com> wrote:
>>Do you have any of the CFV's archived by any chance? *My*
recollection
>>is just the opposite. Soc.feminism was created to get away from the
>>constant infantile "Feminism bad, no feminism good" arguments.
>
>I don't have the CFV on-line, but you can check the newusers group.
>Soc.feminism is defined there as:
>@ Soc.feminism is a moderated newsgroup for the discussion of
feminist
>@ issues. Both men and women are encouraged to post to it and
discussion
>@ is not limited to the pro-feminist viewpoint.
>
>>Alt.feminism was created to give the anti-feminists a place to do
their
>>whining so the grownups could have a real discussion in peace and
>>quiet.
>
>So why do feminists try to take it over?
Whatsa matter, Hillel? Mad because the mean ol' feminists came into
*your* newsgroup? So much for your support of open debate.
>Why is not their moderated, by feminists, newsgroup good enough for
them?
We love open debate too.
Barbara Amero
Sen...@no.mail wrote:
: EDI...@npvm.newpaltz.edu (Bill Edison) wrote:
: >In article <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU.
: >cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
: >
: >.
: >.Ngs changed
: >.
: >.Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca. wrote:
: >..Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >..: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com. PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
: >..: <snipped.
: >.How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children?
: Traditional should be an alternative that informed people can choose
: of their own free will if it suits them.
I don't think traditional should be an option ... less ya don't mind
hearing taxpayers complain when traditional runs amuck! Regardless I don't
think it should be an option. How sadly uncreative we are!
snip
: >.Very common comment, raising children is not work. Men certainly
: >.would stoop to being "loafers" and doing it. Certainly running a
: >.household is just eating bon bons all day. Riight. Raising children
: >.is very hard work, and to parent-bash like that is exceedingly rude,
: It's not just work. It is one of the most important jobs in society.
I agree and tis far too important to leave to people who don't have
the skills to raise children, who may be abusive ....... and so on.
snip
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca)
{o o} http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
Everything else you grow out of, but you never recover from childhood.
--------------------------------------------------- Beryl Bainbridge
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
--
Some...@somewhere.sometime
Sen...@no.mail wrote:
:Gro...@step.off wrote:
:>g...@sfu.ca (Allison Gau) wrote:
:>:sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:
:>:>(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
:>:>>
:>:>>Ngs changed
:>:>>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
:>:>>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:>:>>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
:>:> <everything snipped>
:>:> OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man is
:>:>a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
:>:>contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex.
:>:Good enough.
:>:>If a man is a contemptible
:>:>"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
:>:>some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody
:>:>works outside the home, nobody eats.
:>:And if everybody works outside the home, then who takes care of the kids?
:>Have you ever heard of day care?
:You don't think a couple should ever make the decision to allow one of
:them to stay home and raise their children? Does that make the
:stay-home parent less of a worker than the person you'd pay to do the
:same job, to take care of the child and household stuff?
If a woman, or a couple, can afford to stay home and parent the child, that's
their right, but it's not their right to demand that society financially support that
choice.
Some...@somewhere.sometime
Sen...@no.mail wrote:
:EDI...@npvm.newpaltz.edu (Bill Edison) wrote:
:>In article <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU.
:>cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
:>
:>.
:>.Ngs changed
:>.
:>.Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca. wrote:
:>..Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:>..: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com. PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
:>..: <snipped.
:>.How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children?
:Traditional should be an alternative that informed people can choose
:of their own free will if it suits them.
:>Can't be
:>.men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have
:>.nothing against demanding women do it. The Mormon Elders just demanded
:>.women stay at home and not work outside the home. Per seems to have
:>.forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist,
:>.because if men are loafers for that work, so are women. If it is good
:>.that women do it, so it is for men. To split this by sex is sexist.
:>.And so many anti feminists are blatently and self-righteously sexist
:>.it can make you sick.
:>
:>Sick is right! If you're going to dogmatically say that women are the
:> only ones who care for children then you are sadly stuck with having
:> to explain why those children are raised to become *sexists*. Maybe
:> such a sad set of circumstances could be avoided by having men raise
:> them.
:>
:The children do not necessarily become sexists because women are
:raising them. Perhaps that happens when men surrender good parenting
:and disengage themselves from the family.
Unbelievable! Men teach sexism by NOT being there! Must be telepathy.
This woman (?), well feminist anyway, obviously has run out of any factual
basis for blaming men, but the feminist mindset continues to roll on without
any fodder for the blaming mill.
:Maybe it happens when a
:child is hurt by one parent's apparent lack of interest.
Precisely. By the mother's lack of interest, or the mother's violent, selfish
will and temper.
: Maybe your
:definition of sexism is flawed.
Absolutely. The definition considers the possibility that WOMEN might be
sexist, and as all feminists know, that just can't be.
:Maybe children learn sexism from other
:children.
If she can't blame men, then maybe she can blame other children. Well who's
parenting all these other children? Women!
: Maybe this is the best possible arrangement and would only
:be made worse by single-male parenting.
Right. Child abuse and destructive parenting is the best possible
arrangement. Spoken like a true feminist.
: There are loads of
:possibilities which is only to say, your syllogism doesn't work.
There are loads, all right, but not of possibilities
:>.>.[snip]
:>..Hmmm.... am I understanding you correctly ... are you saying that women
:>..who work as homemakers do not work for a living? Is that what you're
:>..saying?? Maybe Fairman who isn't nutty would like to address this issue.
:>..So what do you think Fairman?
:>.
:>.Very common comment, raising children is not work. Men certainly
:>.would stoop to being "loafers" and doing it. Certainly running a
:>.household is just eating bon bons all day. Riight. Raising children
:>.is very hard work, and to parent-bash like that is exceedingly rude,
:It's not just work. It is one of the most important jobs in society.
For which women have shown a particular ineptitude. Damn right it's the
most important job in our society. From parented children comes our future
adults. Feminists claim that men are screwed up. Well guess who parented
them? Women! I think it's time to get women out of the parenting roles where
they commit unparalleled levels of violence. Men need to rescue the children
and provide them with healthy parenting, so that they can have a happy,
productive future.