Neglected: "Question for the Feminists
Michael Snyder
into a discussion of discrimination against the left-handed.
It must be obvious by now what I was trying to get at, so I
will now ask directly:
Are there ***ANY*** feminists who will decry and condemn
Elizabeth's attempt to contravene the first amendment and
silence my website? Anti-feminists, please hold your peace
and wait for them to respond.
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
+ Check out the Fem-Wit (tm) Pages
= Now at our NEW Home!
+ http://my.ispchannel.com/~msnyder/best-of/fem-wits
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Parg2000
>From: "Goddess" hl-go...@home.com
>Date: 10/16/00 12:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <KYIG5.12929$f5.4...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
>news:3FFG5.4604$qO1.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
>> My thread "Question for the Feminists" seems to have degenerated
>> into a discussion of discrimination against the left-handed.
>>
>> It must be obvious by now what I was trying to get at, so I
>> will now ask directly:
>>
>> Are there ***ANY*** feminists who will decry and condemn
>> Elizabeth's attempt to contravene the first amendment and
>> silence my website? Anti-feminists, please hold your peace
>> and wait for them to respond.
>
>completely support the first amendment. There are other ways to skin a cat.
{Parg} I agree.
>
>Gram
john_c
<fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Oh come on, you two, didn't you read Elizabeth's post? It dripped, oozed,
>GUSHED! the poor-pity-me-damsel-in-distress line. She knew damn well what
>she was doing. It's no different than what I see out my window with the
>women who pick fights with the guys and then 'cry helpless' to the cops when
>they get their asses whupped..
>
>If Elizabeth can't stand the heat, she shouldn't be on this NG.
Uh, you've got women outside your window picking fights with guys and
cops coming to pick up the pieces?
Where the heck are you living? Someplace that rents rooms by the
hour? <G> Time to change neighborhoods.
I guess it would save on the cable bill though.
--
(ężę) John C
www.socmen.org
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <20001016162404...@ng-da1.news.cs.com>,
parg...@cs.com (Parg2000) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Neglected: "Question for the Feminists
>>From: "Goddess" hl-go...@home.com
>>Date: 10/16/00 12:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <KYIG5.12929$f5.4...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
>>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>"Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
>>news:3FFG5.4604$qO1.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
>>> My thread "Question for the Feminists" seems to have degenerated
>>> into a discussion of discrimination against the left-handed.
>>>
>>> It must be obvious by now what I was trying to get at, so I
>>> will now ask directly:
>>>
>>> Are there ***ANY*** feminists who will decry and condemn
>>> Elizabeth's attempt to contravene the first amendment and
>>> silence my website? Anti-feminists, please hold your peace
>>> and wait for them to respond.
>>
>>While I disagree that Elizabeth was attempting to *silence* your website, I
>>completely support the first amendment. There are other ways to skin a cat.
>
> {Parg} I agree.
Oh come on, you two, didn't you read Elizabeth's post? It dripped, oozed,
GUSHED! the poor-pity-me-damsel-in-distress line. She knew damn well what
she was doing. It's no different than what I see out my window with the
women who pick fights with the guys and then 'cry helpless' to the cops when
they get their asses whupped..
If Elizabeth can't stand the heat, she shouldn't be on this NG.
Deb.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <76anussm8fs9p8fp7...@4ax.com>, John C wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:33:48 GMT, "Deborah Terreson"
> <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>Oh come on, you two, didn't you read Elizabeth's post? It dripped, oozed,
>>GUSHED! the poor-pity-me-damsel-in-distress line. She knew damn well what
>>she was doing. It's no different than what I see out my window with the
>>women who pick fights with the guys and then 'cry helpless' to the cops when
>>they get their asses whupped..
>>
>>If Elizabeth can't stand the heat, she shouldn't be on this NG.
>
> Uh, you've got women outside your window picking fights with guys and
> cops coming to pick up the pieces?
Yep. The rent's cheep for this area, we're paying about a third what all the
dot-com wannabe-millionaires that have moved into this region (Oh look, the
E-Coast! how trendy! Honey, pack the Range Rover, that cottage is sooo
quaint! <puke,puke,puke>), pay.
> Where the heck are you living?
The last square block in Portsmouth still stubbornly resisting
gentrification! Long live the working-class ghetto!... actually, it is a
living museum to the town's real history, not that pasteurized cheez-whiz
nausea they sell the tourists (Hey! didja know, John Paul Jones broke wind
here? Ooooh, fascinating!).
> Someplace that rents rooms by the
> hour? <G>
Would you believe Bob woke up at 3 a.m. one night to find a man in our
bathroom getting ready to take a shower? He thought this was just one of
those places! Egad! Now we check and lock the front door every night.
> Time to change neighborhoods.
When we go, we're going to do far more than change neighborhoods...More
likely it'll be a new state or even a new country... I really like the
north.
>
> I guess it would save on the cable bill though.
Perhaps.
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <iMPG5.13833$f5.5...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>, "Goddess"
<hl-go...@home.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:M7NG5.132999$NH2.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <20001016162404...@ng-da1.news.cs.com>,
>> parg...@cs.com (Parg2000) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>Subject: Re: Neglected: "Question for the Feminists
>> >>From: "Goddess" hl-go...@home.com
>> >>Date: 10/16/00 12:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >>Message-id: <KYIG5.12929$f5.4...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
>> >>
>> >>x-no-archive: yes
>> >>
>> >>"Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:3FFG5.4604$qO1.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
>> >>> My thread "Question for the Feminists" seems to have degenerated
>> >>> into a discussion of discrimination against the left-handed.
>> >>>
>> >>> It must be obvious by now what I was trying to get at, so I
>> >>> will now ask directly:
>> >>>
>> >>> Are there ***ANY*** feminists who will decry and condemn
>> >>> Elizabeth's attempt to contravene the first amendment and
>> >>> silence my website? Anti-feminists, please hold your peace
>> >>> and wait for them to respond.
>> >>
>> >>While I disagree that Elizabeth was attempting to *silence* your
> website, I
>> >>completely support the first amendment. There are other ways to skin a
> cat.
>> >
>> > {Parg} I agree.
>>
>> Oh come on, you two, didn't you read Elizabeth's post?
>
> What about supporting the first amendment is it that you don't understand?
>
> It dripped, oozed,
>> GUSHED! the poor-pity-me-damsel-in-distress line.
>
> So?
>
> She knew damn well what
>> she was doing. It's no different than what I see out my window with the
>> women who pick fights with the guys and then 'cry helpless' to the cops
> when
>> they get their asses whupped..
>
> There was nothing in her letter that suggested she wanted the site shut
> down. Nothing.
>
>> If Elizabeth can't stand the heat, she shouldn't be on this NG.
>
> And would you be saying the same thing if YOUR articles were on the site?
> You might want to think about that.
Marg,I have no illusions about the fact that this is the INTERNET. This is
not the same as a private, handwritten correspondence. In the digital age,
everything, (and I accept that to mean my private E-mails as well), has the
possibility for public display. This basic fact seems to slip by many. I
don't give a tinkers damn if Michael, or even a crank like John Knight uses
the words I post here (apparently, he DOES have some of my posts on one of
his sites..big deal!). If someone bothers me, I'll just ignore it. I don't
have to read any e-mail if I don't recognize it as coming from someone I
know. There's this little thing called the DELETE button. I use it
liberally.
Excuse me for being an old Yankee but we have a saying up here, it goes like
this: "Just because it's someone else's dime, doesn't mean you have to talk
to them."
Deb.
>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
Michael Snyder
Deborah Terreson wrote in message ...
>----------
>In article <20001016162404...@ng-da1.news.cs.com>,
>parg...@cs.com (Parg2000) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Neglected: "Question for the Feminists
>>>From: "Goddess" hl-go...@home.com
>>>Date: 10/16/00 12:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <KYIG5.12929$f5.4...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
>>>
>>>news:3FFG5.4604$qO1.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
>>>> My thread "Question for the Feminists" seems to have degenerated
>>>> into a discussion of discrimination against the left-handed.
>>>>
>>>> It must be obvious by now what I was trying to get at, so I
>>>> will now ask directly:
>>>>
>>>> Are there ***ANY*** feminists who will decry and condemn
>>>> Elizabeth's attempt to contravene the first amendment and
>>>> silence my website? Anti-feminists, please hold your peace
>>>> and wait for them to respond.
>>>
>>>While I disagree that Elizabeth was attempting to *silence* your website,
How --- interesting!
What word would you use, then, Marg?
When a person goes to an institution and says
"Make that man stop saying what he's saying",
why would you NOT use the word "silence"?
>>>I
>>>completely support the first amendment. There are other ways to skin a
cat.
You have avoided saying that you support MY right to
say what I am saying on my website, and you have also
avoided saying that ELIZABETH was wrong.
>> {Parg} I agree.
With what, exactly, do you agree, Parg?
Marg said NOTHING of substance, other than that
she supports the first amendment (wow, what a risky
stance!)
What about you, Parg? Do you support my right to my website?
Do you condemn Elizabeth's actions?
>Oh come on, you two, didn't you read Elizabeth's post? It dripped, oozed,
>GUSHED! the poor-pity-me-damsel-in-distress line. She knew damn well what
>she was doing. It's no different than what I see out my window with the
>women who pick fights with the guys and then 'cry helpless' to the cops
when
>they get their asses whupped..
>
>If Elizabeth can't stand the heat, she shouldn't be on this NG.
>
>Deb.
Heh. I already knew YOU would be fair. ;-)
Michael Snyder
Deborah Terreson wrote in message ...
>In article <iMPG5.13833$f5.5...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>, "Goddess"
><hl-go...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>> news:M7NG5.132999$NH2.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> In article <20001016162404...@ng-da1.news.cs.com>,
>>> parg...@cs.com (Parg2000) wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Subject: Re: Neglected: "Question for the Feminists
>>> >>From: "Goddess" hl-go...@home.com
>>> >>Date: 10/16/00 12:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>> >>Message-id: <KYIG5.12929$f5.4...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
>>> >>
>>> >>news:3FFG5.4604$qO1.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
>>> >>> My thread "Question for the Feminists" seems to have degenerated
>>> >>> into a discussion of discrimination against the left-handed.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It must be obvious by now what I was trying to get at, so I
>>> >>> will now ask directly:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Are there ***ANY*** feminists who will decry and condemn
>>> >>> Elizabeth's attempt to contravene the first amendment and
>>> >>> silence my website? Anti-feminists, please hold your peace
>>> >>> and wait for them to respond.
>>> >>
>>> >>While I disagree that Elizabeth was attempting to *silence* your
>> website, I
>>> >>completely support the first amendment. There are other ways to skin
a
>> cat.
>>> >
>>> > {Parg} I agree.
>>>
>>> Oh come on, you two, didn't you read Elizabeth's post?
>>
>> What about supporting the first amendment is it that you don't
understand?
[Pardon me, Deb...]
What you left unstated, Marg -- whether you support MY first
amendment right to MY website as it is, without censorship.
>> It dripped, oozed,
>>> GUSHED! the poor-pity-me-damsel-in-distress line.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> She knew damn well what
>>> she was doing. It's no different than what I see out my window with the
>>> women who pick fights with the guys and then 'cry helpless' to the cops
>> when
>>> they get their asses whupped..
>>
>> There was nothing in her letter that suggested she wanted the site shut
>> down. Nothing.
So? Supposing she didn't? What DID she want?
She wanted me to STOP SAYING WHAT I WAS SAYING.
Is that censorship, or isn't it? Do you oppose it, or don't you?
Or are you too chickenshit to say that another feminist was
WRONG?
>>
>>> If Elizabeth can't stand the heat, she shouldn't be on this NG.
>>
>> And would you be saying the same thing if YOUR articles were on the site?
>> You might want to think about that.
Did you ever stop to ask yourself, Marg, "Would I support a person's
first amendment rights if I didn't like what he was saying about ME?
Before you accuse Deb of hypocracy, you'd better look to yourself.
--
john_c
<fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>Would you believe Bob woke up at 3 a.m. one night to find a man in our
>bathroom getting ready to take a shower? He thought this was just one of
>those places! Egad! Now we check and lock the front door every night.
LOL!
At least you didn't discover this guy as you rolled over in bed!
Diane
Michael Snyder wrote in message
<3FFG5.4604$qO1.1...@news1.onlynews.com>...
>My thread "Question for the Feminists" seems to have degenerated
>into a discussion of discrimination against the left-handed.
>
>It must be obvious by now what I was trying to get at, so I
>will now ask directly:
>
>Are there ***ANY*** feminists who will decry and condemn
>Elizabeth's attempt to contravene the first amendment and
>silence my website? Anti-feminists, please hold your peace
>and wait for them to respond.
Hi folks!
I've been debating on whether or not to dip my toe into this pool for a few
days (esp. since I've only been lurking for a few weeks).
First and foremost, it seems that in this case Elizabeth is clearly in the
wrong and deluded to boot. Come on, even high school social studies classes
go over the principle of the first amendment!! Unfortunately, I haven't had
the opportunity to read more than about two of her posts to gain some idea
of her political leanings.
Regardless, I find it appalling that she would expend her energies in trying
to stunt a debate, rather than putting up her own site and posting the URL
to the group, or posting a good explanation of why the offending site was
wrong/crappy/ugly. Call me a mushball, but I have clung to the free-speech
ideal proposed by JS Mill, that bad speech should never be silenced, but
countered with more speech. Her reaction reminds me of the granola girl in
an intro to poli-sci course I took in college, who spent 20 minutes after
class bitching about how the professor was such an asshole when all he had
done during lecture was to ask her to explain her reasoning for a
particular belief. She couldn't argue/think straight, therefore he was an
asshole.
Secondly, the whole "he posted my email" thing is a joke. If you posted
here, YOU posted your email. If you cared about that the first go-round,
you would have typed a good fake one in your account configuration.
Third and last, I hesitated in commenting because while the "hey feminists!"
line seemed to speak to me, I certainly don't seem to fit very well with
what this group (including the women who call themselves feminists) use as a
definition of the term.
Can I go by "post-feminist" if I promise to define it? (assuming of course,
that the term isn't already being beaten to death by an academic type?)
Diane
Michael Snyder
Diane wrote in message <8sj5c3$7s78$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>...
>
[lotsa good stuff about how Elizabeth is wrong elided]
>Can I go by "post-feminist" if I promise to define it? (assuming of course,
>that the term isn't already being beaten to death by an academic type?)
>
>Diane
Hi Diane,
Sure you can! Looking forward to your definition.
I have a favorite lapel button that reads:
I'm post-chauvanist,
if you're post-feminist
I've even used the above line in a "personals" ad! ;-)
Society
news:8sj5c3$7s78$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Michael Snyder wrote...
> >
> >My thread "Question for the Feminists" seems to have
> >degenerated into a discussion of discrimination against
> >the left-handed.
> >
> >It must be obvious by now what I was trying to get at,
> >so I will now ask directly:
> >
> >Are there ***ANY*** feminists who will decry and condemn
> >Elizabeth's attempt to contravene the first amendment and
> >silence my website? Anti-feminists, please hold your peace
> >and wait for them to respond.
>
> Hi folks!
>
> I've been debating on whether or not to dip my toe into this
> pool for a few days (esp. since I've only been lurking for
> a few weeks).
>
> First and foremost, it seems that in this case Elizabeth
> is clearly in the wrong and deluded to boot. Come on,
> even high school social studies classes go over the
What does the First Amendment to the US Constitution
have to do with this situation? If this is the sort of edukashun
given in US publik skools about what the fundamental law
of the nation is, no wonder there are so many young skulls
full of mush around here.
Free Clue: The US Bill of Rights (i.e. the first 10 amendments
to the US Constitution) is a list of what the government is
prohibited from doing, not restrictions on people -- including
people of bad will like Elizabeth.
---
If you guys vote for Al Gore,
you're out of your minds.
Actor Bruce Willis,
New York Daily News, 7/19/00
Jill
<soc...@feminism.is.invalid> sent through the ether:
<big snip>
>---
> If you guys vote for Al Gore,
> you're out of your minds.
>
> Actor Bruce Willis,
> New York Daily News, 7/19/00
>
I knew there was something I liked about Bruce Willis.
Diane
"Society" <soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:ssoH5.6475$cO4.1...@nntp3.onemain.com...
Gee thanks, a billion, I never would have guessed this *rolling eyes*
Let's see here; if a right is so important to the public that said public
prohibits the government from ever taking it away, the implied statement is
that the people aren't to take that right away from each other either.
Granted, this gives people of ill will a lot of leeway in the matter until
something lands on the Supreme Court docket, but I mentioned the first
amendment as a reference to the SPIRIT of the law. Although, now that you
mention it, it would be pretty easy to get his site removed time and again
without recourse, until he set up his own web server to post it solely on
his own dime.
That doesn't change the fact that her behavior is a violation of the spirit
of free speech upon which our laws are based --- would that statement be a
better summary for you?
Diane
Diane
>
> Diane wrote in message <8sj5c3$7s78$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> [lotsa good stuff about how Elizabeth is wrong elided]
>
> >Can I go by "post-feminist" if I promise to define it? (assuming of
course,
> >that the term isn't already being beaten to death by an academic type?)
> >
> >Diane
>
>
> Hi Diane,
>
> Sure you can! Looking forward to your definition.
> I have a favorite lapel button that reads:
>
> I'm post-chauvanist,
> if you're post-feminist
>
> I've even used the above line in a "personals" ad! ;-)
Hmm.. point taken. In the meantime, I did a little net-searching and
discovered that the term had indeed been adopted by some academic types.
Not knowing what they stand for, I think I'll let that term go and mull over
a different one. Besides, my leanings are more toward the egalitarian (lord
knows that term is never going to be catchy enough to work into a campaign
slogan).
Diane
Michael Snyder
Diane wrote in message <39ef1302$0$29...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net>...
>
>"Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
>news:oDbH5.2549$AS2....@news1.onlynews.com...
>>
>> >
>> [lotsa good stuff about how Elizabeth is wrong elided]
>>
>> >Can I go by "post-feminist" if I promise to define it? (assuming of
>course,
>> >that the term isn't already being beaten to death by an academic type?)
>> >
>> >Diane
>>
>>
>> Hi Diane,
>>
>> Sure you can! Looking forward to your definition.
>> I have a favorite lapel button that reads:
>>
>> I'm post-chauvanist,
>> if you're post-feminist
>>
>> I've even used the above line in a "personals" ad! ;-)
>
>discovered that the term had indeed been adopted by some academic types.
>Not knowing what they stand for, I think I'll let that term go and mull
over
>a different one.
Hey, I wasn't trying to take the term away from you!
The point of the lapel button was to say "I won't be a
chauvinist if you won't be a feminist". I.e. the two are
roughly equivalent.
Hey, maybe we can start using a fixed-phrase put-down
like "female feminist sow", and.... nah.
>Besides, my leanings are more toward the egalitarian (lord
>knows that term is never going to be catchy enough to work
>into a campaign slogan).
>
>Diane
OK, so here's a question for you -- after lurking here for a while,
who do you think are the more egalitarian? The feminists, or the
anti-feminists/masculists?
Michael
Diane
>
> Diane wrote in message <39ef1302$0$29...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net>...
> >
> >"Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
> >news:oDbH5.2549$AS2....@news1.onlynews.com...
> >>
<8sj5c3$7s78$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>...
> >> >
> >> [lotsa good stuff about how Elizabeth is wrong elided]
> >>
> >> >Can I go by "post-feminist" if I promise to define it? (assuming of
> >course,
> >> >that the term isn't already being beaten to death by an academic
type?)
> >> >
> >> >Diane
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Diane,
> >>
> >> Sure you can! Looking forward to your definition.
> >> I have a favorite lapel button that reads:
> >>
> >> I'm post-chauvanist,
> >> if you're post-feminist
> >>
> >> I've even used the above line in a "personals" ad! ;-)
> >
> >discovered that the term had indeed been adopted by some academic types.
> >Not knowing what they stand for, I think I'll let that term go and mull
> over
> >a different one.
>
> Hey, I wasn't trying to take the term away from you!
> The point of the lapel button was to say "I won't be a
> chauvinist if you won't be a feminist". I.e. the two are
> roughly equivalent.
Right, I was taking that poing to heart, but it also made me re-think how I
*would* want to describe my views. I dislike the term feminist because of
it's inherent sexism, but post-feminism, even with it's implication that it
is somehow beyond feminism, isn't quite beyond sexism.
> Hey, maybe we can start using a fixed-phrase put-down
> like "female feminist sow", and.... nah.
Hmm. I don't quite know where to start with this. Let's just say you would
love my workplace.
> >Besides, my leanings are more toward the egalitarian (lord
> >knows that term is never going to be catchy enough to work
> >into a campaign slogan).
> >
> >Diane
>
> OK, so here's a question for you -- after lurking here for a while,
> who do you think are the more egalitarian? The feminists, or the
> anti-feminists/masculists?
To be perfectly honest, neither -- at least on the fringe edges. The women
who claim that all sex is rape and that we should never have a relationship
with a man because it cannot be an equal relationship (I remember laughing
my ass off at this one when I read it in a college course) are equally as
bad as the guys who insist that god and nature have it in mind that women
should do nothing but breed and wait for their husbands with a martini in
hand. The expectations of men from both camps are equally ridiculous and
stifling.
Will elaborate later, but work calls!
Diane
Society
>
> "Society" <soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote...
> >
> > Diane wrote...
> > >
> > > Michael Snyder wrote...
> > > >
> > > >Are there ***ANY*** feminists who will decry and condemn
> > > >Elizabeth's attempt to contravene the first amendment and
> > > >silence my website? Anti-feminists, please hold your peace
> > > >and wait for them to respond.
> > >
> > > is clearly in the wrong and deluded to boot. Come on,
> > > even high school social studies classes go over the
> > > principle of the first amendment!! [...]
> >
> > What does the First Amendment to the US Constitution
> > have to do with this situation? If this is the sort of edukashun
> > given in US publik skools about what the fundamental law
> > of the nation is, no wonder there are so many young skulls
> > full of mush around here.
> >
> > Free Clue: The US Bill of Rights (i.e. the first 10 amendments
> > to the US Constitution) is a list of what the government is
> > prohibited from doing, not restrictions on people -- including
> > people of bad will like Elizabeth.
>
> Gee thanks, a billion, I never would have guessed this
> *rolling eyes*
Obviously. That's why I clued you in Diane.
> Let's see here; if a right is so important to the public that
> said public prohibits the government from ever taking it away,
> the implied statement is that the people aren't to take that
> right away from each other either.
That's a false statement. You're still confused about
(a) what a 'right' is and (b) what the 'right' in question
(in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution) is about.
No one has a 'right' to be free of private criticism for their
speech or publications.
> [...] I mentioned the first amendment as a reference to the
> SPIRIT of the law.
Have some syrup with those waffles, Diane.
The First Amendment law, its text or its ineffable "spirit" still
applies only to the government. It's purpose is to restrain
government, not people.
> [...] That doesn't change the fact that her behavior is a violation
> of the spirit of free speech upon which our laws are based ---
> would that statement be a better summary for you?
No. There is no American tradition of "free speech" that claims
one should be free of any criticism, or free from the decision of
other private persons acting in their private capacity to refuse
to assist in the promotion of one's "speech".
Michael Snyder
>
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
> news:8OEH5.6283$AS2.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
> >
> > Diane wrote in message <39ef1302$0$29...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net>...
> > >
> > >"Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
> > >news:oDbH5.2549$AS2....@news1.onlynews.com...
> > >>
> <8sj5c3$7s78$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>...
> > >> >
> > >> [lotsa good stuff about how Elizabeth is wrong elided]
> > >>
> > >> >Can I go by "post-feminist" if I promise to define it? (assuming of
> > >course,
> > >> >that the term isn't already being beaten to death by an academic
> type?)
> > >> >
> > >> >Diane
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Diane,
> > >>
> > >> Sure you can! Looking forward to your definition.
> > >> I have a favorite lapel button that reads:
> > >>
> > >> I'm post-chauvanist,
> > >> if you're post-feminist
> > >>
> > >> I've even used the above line in a "personals" ad! ;-)
> > >
OK, see, what I meant was, of the people you find HERE,
which group seems the more sexist in their stated
positions and opinions?
Diane
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:39EF3B...@redhat.com...
> Diane wrote:
> >
> > "Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
> > news:8OEH5.6283$AS2.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
> > >
> > > Diane wrote in message <39ef1302$0$29...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net>...
> > > >
> > > >"Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:oDbH5.2549$AS2....@news1.onlynews.com...
> > > >>
> > <8sj5c3$7s78$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > >> >
> > > >> [lotsa good stuff about how Elizabeth is wrong elided]
> > > >>
> > > >> >Can I go by "post-feminist" if I promise to define it? (assuming
of
> > > >course,
> > > >> >that the term isn't already being beaten to death by an academic
> > type?)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Diane
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Diane,
> > > >>
> > > >> Sure you can! Looking forward to your definition.
> > > >> I have a favorite lapel button that reads:
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm post-chauvanist,
> > > >> if you're post-feminist
> > > >>
> > > >> I've even used the above line in a "personals" ad! ;-)
> > > >
Hmm.. why do I suddenly feel a little like a worm on a hook here?
If I were to make an offhand call I would have to give this nod to the men,
but my opinion would be very heavily mitigated by the following:
1. It's a men's group, and surely there are a number of guys who wish to
vent (even though their RL beliefs and actions may be a bit more tame)
2. The few self-described feminists who post here don't seem to think
very clearly. This would most definitely make it more fun to feed them
remarks which might not be truly indicative of one's true thoughts in order
to watch them freak out -- which in turn would skew my perceptions of the
guys who were playing. I might think the women were more sexist than the
men if it weren't for the fact that first and foremost they seem more
addlebrained.
Diane
Laura M. Hagan
Diane <dol...@nospam.prodigy.net> wrote in message news:39ef5047$0$36...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net...
> 2. The few self-described feminists who post here don't seem to think
> very clearly. This would most definitely make it more fun to feed them
> remarks which might not be truly indicative of one's true thoughts in order
> to watch them freak out -- which in turn would skew my perceptions of the
> guys who were playing. I might think the women were more sexist than the
> men if it weren't for the fact that first and foremost they seem more
> addlebrained.
ROFL! Oh, perfect, perfect! LOL!
Diane
"Society" <soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
I didn't say "free from criticism" She didn't criticize his work, which if
you noticed my cite of JS Mill you would know I support. She encouraged his
employers to shut him up, which is a different matter altogether.
> > [...] I mentioned the first amendment as a reference to the
> > SPIRIT of the law.
>
> Have some syrup with those waffles, Diane.
Thanks, they were a tad on the dry side!
> The First Amendment law, its text or its ineffable "spirit" still
> applies only to the government. It's purpose is to restrain
> government, not people.
>
> > [...] That doesn't change the fact that her behavior is a violation
> > of the spirit of free speech upon which our laws are based ---
> > would that statement be a better summary for you?
>
> No. There is no American tradition of "free speech" that claims
> one should be free of any criticism, or free from the decision of
> other private persons acting in their private capacity to refuse
> to assist in the promotion of one's "speech".
Agreed -- but this wasn't what I was referring to. Attempting to block
someone from speaking DOES violate the tradition of free speech, and is
clearly what she attempted to do when she wrote to his administrator.
I wholeheartedly agree that speech should not be free from criticism -- and
if this woman had a problem with posted material, she should have used
criticism to counter it. As far as refusing to assist in the promotion of
speech, there are avenues she could have used here too (removing articles
from the archive, like Marg), which would have limited his ability to use
them -- but the fact remains that she has made them publicly available for
perusal, criticism and archive. If anything, SHE attempted to behave as
though her speech should be free of criticism, which as you said above, is
not a right.
Diane
john_c
<dol...@nospam.prodigy.net> wrote:
> The few self-described feminists who post here don't seem to think
>very clearly.
*LOL!*
You noticed that too, didja?
john_c
Say Louie, this may be the start of a long friendship... <walking off
into the fog>
Diane
John C wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:00:02 -0400, "Diane"
><dol...@nospam.prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>> The few self-described feminists who post here don't seem to think
>>very clearly.
>
>*LOL!*
>
>You noticed that too, didja?
How could one not? I was attracted to reading the posts on this group
because of the subjects that I disagreed with (it's a combination of
masochism and wanting to fully understand WHY I hold particular opinions),
but reading the responses from the "feminists" made me want to tear my hair
out! It's certainly making me think that forensics should be mandatory for
high school graduation.
Diane
john_c
<dol...@nospam.prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>John C wrote in message ...
>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:00:02 -0400, "Diane"
>><dol...@nospam.prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The few self-described feminists who post here don't seem to think
>>>very clearly.
>>
>>*LOL!*
>>
>>You noticed that too, didja?
>
>
>How could one not? I was attracted to reading the posts on this group
>because of the subjects that I disagreed with (it's a combination of
>masochism and wanting to fully understand WHY I hold particular opinions),
Hey! That's a pretty cool reason for chewing the fat.
>but reading the responses from the "feminists" made me want to tear my hair
>out! It's certainly making me think that forensics should be mandatory for
>high school graduation.
>
>Diane
Apparently we're all being exposed to the results of poor educational
policies in the public school systems of the first world. I was
reading up on some of this, when looking into the proud performance of
California in education, (We're number 49! We're number 49!) and
found some interesting history of what was called Progressive
Educational Theories, which have evidently been very popular in
Education since about the 60's and 70's. The point the article was
making was that these "progressive" theories replaced the traditional
theories of education (rote memorization, testing, standards) with one
set of fuzzy untested theories after another. The case they were
making was that the methods had never been allowed to be subjected to
scientific analysis of the outcomes of the methods. While test scores
in reading and math were dropping, the same methods were being
expanded into more schools. The post analysis of it all made it seem
pretty stupid: test scores dropping as soon as a new method was
applied, then the same method exported to the next school only to see
scores drop there.
I remember being so surprised when my grandfather told me that he had
to learn Latin and Greek when he attended a small country high school
in Kentucky.
Michael Snyder
>
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:39EF3B...@redhat.com...
> > Diane wrote:
> > >
> > > "Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8OEH5.6283$AS2.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
> > > >
> > > > Diane wrote in message <39ef1302$0$29...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net>...
> > > > >
> > > > >"Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:oDbH5.2549$AS2....@news1.onlynews.com...
> > > > >>
> > > <8sj5c3$7s78$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> [lotsa good stuff about how Elizabeth is wrong elided]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >Can I go by "post-feminist" if I promise to define it? (assuming
> of
> > > > >course,
> > > > >> >that the term isn't already being beaten to death by an academic
> > > type?)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Diane
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Diane,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sure you can! Looking forward to your definition.
> > > > >> I have a favorite lapel button that reads:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm post-chauvanist,
> > > > >> if you're post-feminist
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I've even used the above line in a "personals" ad! ;-)
> > > > >
> very clearly. This would most definitely make it more fun to feed them
> remarks which might not be truly indicative of one's true thoughts in order
> to watch them freak out -- which in turn would skew my perceptions of the
> guys who were playing. I might think the women were more sexist than the
> men if it weren't for the fact that first and foremost they seem more
> addlebrained.
>
Uhhh... OK. I can live with that. I think...
Welcome! ;-)
Careful, it gets deep awful sudden-like...
Society
>
>
> I didn't say "free from criticism" She didn't criticize his work,
> which if you noticed my cite of JS Mill you would know I support.
Actually she did criticize his work -- as in "to speak of
disparagingly".
Yeah, I noticed your misapplication of John Stuart Mill's writings.
His argument is about the State's use of coercion, not private
persons. Perhaps you should check the titles of Mill's writings
to which you are referring for a clue, Diane.
> She encouraged his employers to shut him up, which is
> a different matter altogether.
She directed her criticism of Michael's actions (speech,
publication, what have you) to his employer -- as one
private person to another private person. Certainly she
hoped that her criticisms would sway his employer to
shut him up, at least in venues under their ownership.
Mill also argued for the right to ownership of private
property, Diane. "Free speech" doesn't mean speech
subsidized by unwilling second parties.
It's private property that makes it possible for Michael
to keep his web page of links to Elizabeth's posts
on-line, btw. (Notice the connection between the right
to earn private property and exercise of one's right
to free speech?)
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
>Diane wrote:
>>
>> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
>> news:39EF3B...@redhat.com...
>> > Diane wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:8OEH5.6283$AS2.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > Diane wrote in message
>> > > > <39ef1302$0$29...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net>...
>> > > > >
>> > > > >"Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
>> > > > >news:oDbH5.2549$AS2....@news1.onlynews.com...
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Diane wrote in message
>> > > <8sj5c3$7s78$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>...
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> [lotsa good stuff about how Elizabeth is wrong elided]
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >Can I go by "post-feminist" if I promise to define it?
>> > > > >> >(assuming
>> of
>> > > > >course,
>> > > > >> >that the term isn't already being beaten to death by an
>> > > > >> >academic
>> > > type?)
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >Diane
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Hi Diane,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Sure you can! Looking forward to your definition.
>> > > > >> I have a favorite lapel button that reads:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I'm post-chauvanist,
>> > > > >> if you're post-feminist
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I've even used the above line in a "personals" ad! ;-)
>> > > > >
She said we were more sexist than the feminists! That's not ok.
As for the stuff about naturally being preggers and waiting home for the man
with a martini, that's silly. Nature doesn't have martinis. Women are, like it
or not, geared towards child-rearing. Of course, if we go by nature, I should
be out ripping animals apart with my bare hands for food. I think we can all go
by the civilisation route, yes?
--
Living is easy, with eyes closed,
Misunderstanding all you see...
http://www.crosswinds.net/~ncavalier
Laura M. Hagan
<John C> wrote in message news:vh7vus8sa1m5631fc...@4ax.com...
> I remember being so surprised when my grandfather told me that he had
> to learn Latin and Greek when he attended a small country high school
> in Kentucky.
"Count to twenty."
"One...two..."
"In Greek."
-- Henry Jones, Sr.
Diane
Stephen Morgan wrote in message <8FD3352DAwil...@127.0.0.1>...
That's not quite true. I said that I thought that masculists and feminists
were equally sexist (which seems reasonable, given their interest in their
own gender). Within this group, the men appeared more sexist because the
"feminists" seemed too stupid to actually understand what they were saying
(i.e. I'm not sure they mean to be sexist, they just don't get the question,
and answer in an unreasonable fashion). If it were obvious that they were
more clear, the feminists in this group would probably win the "more sexist"
prize.
>As for the stuff about naturally being preggers and waiting home for the
man
>with a martini, that's silly. Nature doesn't have martinis.
Of course it's silly. Nature *should* have martinis.
If you notice, I said that guys who felt that their wives should be waiting
at home with martini in hand were equally as ridiculous as the women who
believe that women should only enter lesbian relationships, as no male
female relationships could possibly be equal.
Women are, like it
>or not, geared towards child-rearing. Of course, if we go by nature, I
should
>be out ripping animals apart with my bare hands for food. I think we can
all go
>by the civilisation route, yes?
Geared toward child rearing. Hmm... you've got me right up to the point
where the child would actually leave a woman's body. At that point, I have
to admit that while I have met some good mothers, I have met several men who
were the better parent. It didn't work that way in my family, but what can
you do? Personally, I think someone took a wrench to any child-rearing
gears I might have.
Steering this conversation aside, has anyone gone to see Pay it Forward yet?
Diane
Diane
John C wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:48:07 -0400, "Diane"
><dol...@nospam.prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>John C wrote in message ...
>>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:00:02 -0400, "Diane"
>>><dol...@nospam.prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The few self-described feminists who post here don't seem to think
>>>>very clearly.
>>>
>>>*LOL!*
>>>
>>>You noticed that too, didja?
>>
>>
>>How could one not? I was attracted to reading the posts on this group
>>because of the subjects that I disagreed with (it's a combination of
>>masochism and wanting to fully understand WHY I hold particular opinions),
>
>Hey! That's a pretty cool reason for chewing the fat.
>
Thanks! I've noticed that people can get lax in knowing why they hold an
opinion (hence the generations of voters for a party, whose only
justification is "well, our family has always voted X"). I had a roomie in
college who actually called her mother to ask how she should vote, and
another who would lecture about the evils of eating meat even though she
didn't understand the most basic philosophy behind her belief. Once my eyes
healed from rolling so much, I decided it was important to make sure I could
defend a belief, which means I would have to understand other views as well.
Of course, I had to limit myself to ONE Phyllis Schafly lecture per
lifetime, but otherwise...
>>but reading the responses from the "feminists" made me want to tear my
hair
>>out! It's certainly making me think that forensics should be mandatory
for
>>high school graduation.
>>
>>Diane
>
>Apparently we're all being exposed to the results of poor educational
>policies in the public school systems of the first world. I was
>reading up on some of this, when looking into the proud performance of
>California in education, (We're number 49! We're number 49!) and
>found some interesting history of what was called Progressive
>Educational Theories, which have evidently been very popular in
>Education since about the 60's and 70's. The point the article was
>making was that these "progressive" theories replaced the traditional
>theories of education (rote memorization, testing, standards) with one
>set of fuzzy untested theories after another. The case they were
>making was that the methods had never been allowed to be subjected to
>scientific analysis of the outcomes of the methods. While test scores
>in reading and math were dropping, the same methods were being
>expanded into more schools. The post analysis of it all made it seem
>pretty stupid: test scores dropping as soon as a new method was
>applied, then the same method exported to the next school only to see
>scores drop there.
I'm going to give you the short answer and say I'm not surprised. Earlier,
I started another response to your message that went into the horrors of
attending school during the time you mentioned, but it got a little long.
Let's just say it's surprising I can spell my own name, considering the
elementary school I attended.
being so surprised when my grandfather told me that he had
>to learn Latin and Greek when he attended a small country high school
>in Kentucky.
Now that *is* surprising! Well, at least the Greek part. I had to take
Latin in junior high, but only for a short time - and I have been
continually amazed at how it helped me with English spelling and
comprehension.
Diane
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
Maybe. But masculism is just working for equality. Like feminism way back.
>Within this group, the men appeared more
>sexist because the "feminists" seemed too stupid to actually understand
>what they were saying (i.e. I'm not sure they mean to be sexist, they
>just don't get the question, and answer in an unreasonable fashion). If
>it were obvious that they were more clear, the feminists in this group
>would probably win the "more sexist" prize.
Hmm... okay, I suppose.
>>As for the stuff about naturally being preggers and waiting home for
>>the
>man
>>with a martini, that's silly. Nature doesn't have martinis.
>
>Of course it's silly. Nature *should* have martinis.
Bleh, I dislike alcohol.
>If you notice, I said that guys who felt that their wives should be
>waiting at home with martini in hand were equally as ridiculous as the
>women who believe that women should only enter lesbian relationships, as
>no male female relationships could possibly be equal.
Nearly as ridiculous. I don't think there's anything AS ridiculous, so just
nearly.
>Women are, like it
>>or not, geared towards child-rearing. Of course, if we go by nature, I
>should
>>be out ripping animals apart with my bare hands for food. I think we
>>can
>all go
>>by the civilisation route, yes?
>
>
>Geared toward child rearing.
This is part of what women do reproduction-wise. Naturally speaking. We're all
geared for reproduction, you know.
>Hmm... you've got me right up to the point
>where the child would actually leave a woman's body. At that point, I
>have to admit that while I have met some good mothers, I have met
>several men who were the better parent.
That's the 'fault' of society.
>It didn't work that way in my
>family, but what can you do? Personally, I think someone took a wrench
>to any child-rearing gears I might have.
>
>Steering this conversation aside, has anyone gone to see Pay it Forward
>yet?
No.
Diane
"Stephen Morgan" <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:8FD461922wil...@127.0.0.1...
Not always. Sometimes it appears to over-reach, just like feminism now.
Maybe I'm just reading too many posts from the freaks that the more
reasonable men wouldn't have agreed with anyway.
> >Within this group, the men appeared more
> >sexist because the "feminists" seemed too stupid to actually understand
> >what they were saying (i.e. I'm not sure they mean to be sexist, they
> >just don't get the question, and answer in an unreasonable fashion). If
> >it were obvious that they were more clear, the feminists in this group
> >would probably win the "more sexist" prize.
>
> Hmm... okay, I suppose.
>
> >>As for the stuff about naturally being preggers and waiting home for
> >>the
> >man
> >>with a martini, that's silly. Nature doesn't have martinis.
> >
> >Of course it's silly. Nature *should* have martinis.
>
> Bleh, I dislike alcohol.
Well then something nice to look at in a martini glass. Failing that,
coffee perhaps?
>
> >If you notice, I said that guys who felt that their wives should be
> >waiting at home with martini in hand were equally as ridiculous as the
> >women who believe that women should only enter lesbian relationships, as
> >no male female relationships could possibly be equal.
>
> Nearly as ridiculous. I don't think there's anything AS ridiculous, so
just
> nearly.
I dunno. If I were really forced to choose between the two, suicide might
start looking pretty good. I consider them equally bad generalizations
about gender roles.
> >Women are, like it
> >>or not, geared towards child-rearing. Of course, if we go by nature, I
> >should
> >>be out ripping animals apart with my bare hands for food. I think we
> >>can
> >all go
> >>by the civilisation route, yes?
> >
> >
> >Geared toward child rearing.
>
> This is part of what women do reproduction-wise. Naturally speaking. We're
all
> geared for reproduction, you know.
Reproduction and rearing are two different things, though. Clearly women
*are* geared toward bearing children, but men and women can be equally good
at raising/rearing children.
> >Hmm... you've got me right up to the point
> >where the child would actually leave a woman's body. At that point, I
> >have to admit that while I have met some good mothers, I have met
> >several men who were the better parent.
>
> That's the 'fault' of society.
You think it's a *fault* for a man to be good at parenting?
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
Every movement has radicals.
>Maybe I'm just reading too many posts from the freaks that the more
>reasonable men wouldn't have agreed with anyway.
Probably.
>> >Within this group, the men appeared more
>> >sexist because the "feminists" seemed too stupid to actually
>> >understand what they were saying (i.e. I'm not sure they mean to be
>> >sexist, they just don't get the question, and answer in an
>> >unreasonable fashion). If it were obvious that they were more clear,
>> >the feminists in this group would probably win the "more sexist"
>> >prize.
>>
>> Hmm... okay, I suppose.
>>
>> >>As for the stuff about naturally being preggers and waiting home for
>> >>the
>> >man
>> >>with a martini, that's silly. Nature doesn't have martinis.
>> >
>> >Of course it's silly. Nature *should* have martinis.
>>
>> Bleh, I dislike alcohol.
>
>Well then something nice to look at in a martini glass. Failing that,
>coffee perhaps?
No, the caffeinne's bad for you. Orange juice for me. But diluted, otherwise
there's too much sugar.
>> >If you notice, I said that guys who felt that their wives should be
>> >waiting at home with martini in hand were equally as ridiculous as
>> >the women who believe that women should only enter lesbian
>> >relationships, as no male female relationships could possibly be
>> >equal.
>>
>> Nearly as ridiculous. I don't think there's anything AS ridiculous, so
>just
>> nearly.
>
>I dunno. If I were really forced to choose between the two, suicide
>might start looking pretty good. I consider them equally bad
>generalizations about gender roles.
Mass murder could appeal. But yes, generalisations don't work with individuals.
>> >Women are, like it
>> >>or not, geared towards child-rearing. Of course, if we go by nature,
>> >>I
>> >should
>> >>be out ripping animals apart with my bare hands for food. I think we
>> >>can
>> >all go
>> >>by the civilisation route, yes?
>> >
>> >
>> >Geared toward child rearing.
>>
>> This is part of what women do reproduction-wise. Naturally speaking.
>> We're
>all
>> geared for reproduction, you know.
>
>Reproduction and rearing are two different things, though.
Yes, but rearing is a part of reproduction. By nature, the women would do it,
while the men were out hunting. I watched a programme about it. On Discovery.
>Clearly
>women *are* geared toward bearing children, but men and women can be
>equally good at raising/rearing children.
Yes, but naturally they don't. Of course, now we have Civilisation, we do.
>> >Hmm... you've got me right up to the point
>> >where the child would actually leave a woman's body. At that point,
>> >I have to admit that while I have met some good mothers, I have met
>> >several men who were the better parent.
>>
>> That's the 'fault' of society.
>
>You think it's a *fault* for a man to be good at parenting?
No.
--
Populus vul decipi.
john_c
<dol...@nospam.prodigy.net> wrote:
>I'm going to give you the short answer and say I'm not surprised. Earlier,
>I started another response to your message that went into the horrors of
>attending school during the time you mentioned, but it got a little long.
>Let's just say it's surprising I can spell my own name, considering the
>elementary school I attended.
About 5 years ago, I assumed responsibility for a young man that was
in his Junior year of High School (grade 11). Foster son kind of a
deal. When he moved in, I wanted to do the 'dad' thing and get
involved with his school, even though he was a very good student,
getting A's and B's in the public school. Very quickly I discovered
he couldn't add if it involved 'carrying', couldn't subtract if it
involved "borrowing", didn't know the multiplication tables other than
2's and 5's, and couldn't even write down a long division problem.
Fractions were VERY confused, and adding and subtracting them was a
complete mystery. He was in Algebra getting a B. He couldn't write a
sentence, spelling was non-existent, and paragraphs or even story
organization (beginning, middle, end) wasn't there.
California Public School.
He's now in Jr College and doing pretty well.
My 7 year old is in an expensive private school and will stay there if
I have to sell the house.
Society
>
>"Michael Snyder" <msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
> news:8OEH5.6283$AS2.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
> >
> > The feminists, or the anti-feminists/masculists?
>
> To be perfectly honest, neither -- at least on the fringe edges.
That's a nice escape clause: "the fringe edges".
Give some examples of "the fringe edges" of
(a) anti-feminists, (b) masculists and
(c) feminists. Is Gloria Steinem part of the
feminist "fringe edge"? (That's a trap, btw.
Good luck avoiding the pitfall there, Diane!)
I invite Michael Snyder to also answer these questions,
especially my questions about "masculists" and
their "masculist" theories. (Michael's earlier post
didn't make it to my server.)
> The women who claim that all sex is rape
> and that we should never have a relationship
> with a man because it cannot be an equal
> relationship (I remember laughing my ass off
> at this one when I read it in a college course)
> are equally as bad as the guys who insist
> that god and nature have it in mind that women
> should do nothing but breed and wait for their
> husbands with a martini in hand. [...]
Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon fall
pretty close to that group of "women". They are
published authors and influential legal trend-setters.
Now here's the Big Gaping Hole in your moral
equivalence game: There is no one who is an
equally famous and influential advocate of
your "women should do nothing but breed and
wait for their husbands with a martini in hand"
feminist scarey-o-type.
Pop Quiz:
Name an "anti-feminist" or "masculist"
counterpart to:
Ms. Magazine
Andrea Dworkin
Catherine MacKinnon
Gloria Steinem
Any college Women's Studies program
Violence Against Women Act (US legislation)
"Anti-feminist", btw, is a term that is too prone
to abuse by feminists for use in meaningful discussion.
It can include everyone from Cathy Young to Phyllis
Schafly -- all oppose significant, though often different,
parts of feminist agendas and for very different reasons.
The term is only useful to feminists as a gimmick for
equating all their opposition to their most easily
caricatured opponent. It's a distraction ploy feminists
use to run away when questioned by a pro-equality
advocate. Pro-equality, of course, is inherently
anti-feminist.
"Masculist" is just a label used by feminists and their
fellow travellers. It's meaningless. Using that label is a
way feminists pretend that men who dissent from feminism
are "male chauvinists" whose issues can therefore be
dismissed out of hand. (But does anyone notice that by
this feminist logic, feminists are merely "female chauvinists"
with equally dismissible arguments? Hmmm?)
For the sake of discussion, tho', let's examine this "masculism"
stuff. Can you describe the doctrine of "masculism"?
Can you name its theorists and advocates whose doctrines
are widely read and accepted among these "masculists"?
(I'm very interested in who was cited as the "breed and
bring martinis" masculist mastermind by your college
instructor. And if no credible example of this remarkable
theory was given by your instructor, I'm curious to know
why you didn't question that.)
---
All excuses for feminism depend on censorship
of reality to appear plausible.
Rich
Diane wrote:
[]
> That's not quite true. I said that I thought that masculists and feminists
> were equally sexist (which seems reasonable, given their interest in their
> own gender).
First, the word is /sex/, not gender. There is no such thing as a gender.
Second, anti-feminism is nothing but a defense against feminist hate and
sexism (and that's pretty much all the feminist movement's got).
> Within this group, the men appeared more sexist because the
> "feminists" seemed too stupid to actually understand what they were saying
> (i.e. I'm not sure they mean to be sexist, they just don't get the question,
> and answer in an unreasonable fashion).
They understand what they are saying perfectly, and they defend the
most outrageous misandry without a second thought. Hell, you'll be doing
extremely good to find a woman that can identify the most blatant
discrimination against men, which became perfectly clear during the
Take Your Daughter To Work Day debates, where we found out that
feminist mothers not only knew nothing whatsoever about the status
of their sons in school, but that they wanted to know nothing, they
could care less. They were eager to sacrifice their sons at the
altar of their daughter's supposed self-esteem.
> If it were obvious that they were
> more clear, the feminists in this group would probably win the "more sexist"
> prize.
Show me any feminist who is not blatantly sexist in everything she
says and does. Feminism is 100% about women after all.
Rich
> Diane
QIM
"Society" <soci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Masculist" is just a label used by feminists and their
> fellow travellers.
I beg your pardon Society. I have been hear for almost two years
trying to take back Masculism from the queer liberals that used to be
here and have done a good deal of work fleshing out a reasonable
Masculist concept. I wish you would stop ignoring my work Society or I
will feel slighted.
> For the sake of discussion, tho', let's examine this "masculism"
> stuff.
I'd be happy to go through it again Society.
>Can you describe the doctrine of "masculism"?
Here it is Society, all pretty with pastel colors and concise for the
reading challenged individuals here:
The Masculist Manifesto
http://members.home.net/qim/masculistmanifesto
Now Society, I know you are a Republican and don't like to promote our
democratic efforts, but you MUST take my manifesto seriously at least
until something else comes along.
And another thing Society, you said you agreed with the Manifesto.
> Can you name its theorists and advocates whose doctrines
> are widely read and accepted among these "masculists"?
Tom Smith of the American Union of Men and Society of Soc.Men (smile).
Listen, we can't go around forever calling ourselves "anti-feminists".
At some point we will need to realize that we at least can do as well
as those dumb feminists and come up with a positive identity and
program. We have poor guys like CJW here who are trying sincerely to
help, but who just don't have a clue and need some clever leadership.
When that happens, all boats will rise in the water.
Tom
The American Union of Men (AUM)
http://www.egroups.com/group/aum/info.html
The Masculist Manifesto
http://members.home.net/qim/masculistmanifesto
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Snyder
Diane wrote in message <39f1cbca$0$70...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net>...
As all of human evolution (and survival) may attest.
>> >Hmm... you've got me right up to the point
>> >where the child would actually leave a woman's body. At that point, I
>> >have to admit that while I have met some good mothers, I have met
>> >several men who were the better parent.
>>
>> That's the 'fault' of society.
>
>You think it's a *fault* for a man to be good at parenting?
Perhaps he meant for a woman to be bad at it.
Michael Snyder
Rich wrote in message <39F2516D...@home.removeme.com>...
>
>Diane wrote:
>
>[]
>
>> That's not quite true. I said that I thought that masculists and
feminists
>> were equally sexist (which seems reasonable, given their interest in
their
>> own gender).
>
>First, the word is /sex/, not gender. There is no such thing as a gender.
>
>Second, anti-feminism is nothing but a defense against feminist hate and
>sexism (and that's pretty much all the feminist movement's got).
>
>> Within this group, the men appeared more sexist because the
>> "feminists" seemed too stupid to actually understand what they were
saying
>> (i.e. I'm not sure they mean to be sexist, they just don't get the
question,
>> and answer in an unreasonable fashion).
>
>They understand what they are saying perfectly, and they defend the
>most outrageous misandry without a second thought. Hell, you'll be doing
>extremely good to find a woman that can identify the most blatant
>discrimination against men,
Deb, Sojourner, Jill, Bunny Sewell.... to name a few.
>which became perfectly clear during the
>Take Your Daughter To Work Day debates, where we found out that
>feminist mothers not only knew nothing whatsoever about the status
>of their sons in school, but that they wanted to know nothing, they
>could care less.
Rich, I think you just made Diane's point for her.
In the second sentence, you said "feminist", but in
the first, you said "woman". You're quite right about
the "feminist mothers", by the way...
>They were eager to sacrifice their sons at the
>altar of their daughter's supposed self-esteem.
>
>> If it were obvious that they were
>> more clear, the feminists in this group would probably win the "more
sexist"
>> prize.
>
>Show me any feminist who is not blatantly sexist in everything she
>says and does. Feminism is 100% about women after all.
--
Edward A. Falk
Diane <dol...@nospam.prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>Gee thanks, a billion, I never would have guessed this *rolling eyes*
>prohibits the government from ever taking it away, the implied statement is
>that the people aren't to take that right away from each other either.
>That doesn't change the fact that her behavior is a violation of the spirit
>of free speech upon which our laws are based --- would that statement be a
>better summary for you?
Yow! Very well said.
While you're mulling over a definition for "post-feminist", let
me toss in my own definition of "censorship": The use of power
to suppress ideas or expression.
Elizabeth tried to pull strings in order to suppress a web page
she disliked. That's censorship, albeit a minor instance.
--
-ed falk, fa...@falconer.vip.best.com. See *********************#*************#*
http://www.rahul.net/falk/whatToDo.html #**************F******!******!*!!****
and read 12 Simple Things You Can Do ******!***************************#**
to Save the Internet **#******#*********!**WW*W**WW****